No abstract

No abstract

To evaluate the performance of the Xpert Bladder Cancer Monitor (Xpert; Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) test as a predictor of tumour recurrence in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Patients and MethodsPatients (n = 429) undergoing surveillance for NMIBC underwent Xpert, cytology, and UroVysion testing. Patients with a positive Xpert and a negative cystoscopy result (positive-negative [PN] group, n = 66) and a control group of double negative patients (negative Xpert and cystoscopy results [NN] group) were followed for 12 months (AE90 days). ResultsHistology-confirmed recurrences were detected in 58 patients (13.5%). Xpert had an overall sensitivity of 60.3% and a specificity of 76.5%. The sensitivity for high-grade (HG) cancer was 87% with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99%. Urine cytology showed an overall sensitivity of 23.2% (47.6% sensitivity for HG tumours) and a specificity of 88.3%. In the PN group, 32% (n = 21) developed a recurrence within 12 months, 11 of which were HG tumours. In the NN control group, 14% (n = 9) developed a recurrence and only two were HG tumours. The hazard ratio for developing recurrence in the PN group was 2.68 for all tumours and 6.84 for HG cancer. ConclusionsThe Xpert test has a high sensitivity for detecting the recurrence of cancer and a high NPV for excluding HG cancer. In addition, the data suggest that patients with a positive Xpert assay in the setting of negative cystoscopy are at high risk for recurrence and need close surveillance.

Background: Wait times in cancer diagnosis and treatment may significantly affect a patient's treatment outcome, prognosis and quality of life. The purpose of this study was to capture wait time intervals for patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy (RT) at the Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada and to compare patients diagnosed in a rapid diagnostic unit (RDU) versus the usual community referral process. Methods: Patients agreed to participate in the study during their RT planning sessions. A semi-structured interview and chart abstraction was conducted to record key wait time milestones. Results: A total of 87 patients participated in the study: 44 RDU patients and 43 community patients. The median overall wait time intervals from suspicion of prostate cancer to RT was 138 and 183 days, respectively (p = 0.046). There were statistically significant differences observed for other key wait time intervals favouring the RDU cohort: suspicion to decision-to-treat (DTT; p = 0.012), urologist visit to diagnosis (p = 0.0094), diagnosis to DTT (p = 0.018), and diagnosis to treatment (p = 0.016). Risk category and Gleason sum was independently predictive of longer intervals from diagnosis to DTT. Interpretation: Wait time intervals from suspicion to treatment are significantly shorter for prostate cancer patients in 2011 to 2012 than in 2003 when patients were diagnosed and referred in the community setting. A prostate-specific RDU further reduced a number of key wait time intervals supporting more multidisciplinary RDUs for common diseases. Further work needs to be done to identify why delays are occurring and to develop new processes to minimize delays.

A primary yolk sac (endodermal sinus) tumor of the prostate is described in a 40-year-old male. This is the second documented case of a yolk sac tumor occurring in the prostate gland. Treatment included surgical removal and subsequent combination chemotherapy. Four months following diagnosis, the patient died of complications. At autopsy, no residual tumor was detected. The role of combination chemotherapy as potentially curative therapy in the treatment of extragonadal yolk sac tumors is discussed.