424 Background: Advances in prostate cancer (PC) care have led to a 98% 10-year survival rate. Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) is the primary method of follow-up after definitive radiotherapy (RT), with benign PSA ‘bounce’ occurring in up to 30% of patients, causing uncertainty and anxiety. Distinguishing between PSA bounce and biochemical recurrence (BCR) remains challenging. The Phoenix Criteria is the standard definition of BCR since 2006, defined as PSA nadir + 2 ng/dl, but does not consider patient specific information. Our study aims to explore factors associated with bounce and BCR and develop a predictive tool to differentiate between these two events. Methods: PC patients who received RT at our institution between 2006 and 2022 were identified, including only patients with a PSA increase during follow-up. Exclusion criteria included palliative RT, prostatectomy, or insufficient follow-up information. Patients’ clinical data was collected, and PSA increase was classified as bounce or BCR. Variables were compared using Kruskal Wallis or Chi-square. Multivariate logistic regression was performed in the subset of patients with absolute PSA value >2 (n= 581). Results: Of 1783 patients reviewed due to PSA rise after treatment, 694 met the inclusion criteria. There were 213 (30.7%) with PSA bounce and 481 (69.3%) with recurrence. Prior to meeting the Phoenix Criteria, 20 (4.2%) had biopsy-proven recurrence and 18 (3.7%) imaging-proven recurrence. The median delta PSA was 0.8 ng/mL for bounce vs 5 ng/mL for recurrence (p<0.001). The median time from treatment to event was 14.4 months for bounce vs 45.3 months for BCR (p<0.001). Recurrence was significantly associated (p<0.001) with older age at diagnosis, N1 stage, higher risk category, Gleason score, and higher baseline PSA. In the subgroup of patients without ADT, recurrence was associated with a lower median first PSA post-RT (1.9 vs. 2.4, p=0.046) and a lower median nadir before event (0.6 vs. 1.8, p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression achieved an accuracy of 0.94, with a sensitivity of 0.83, specificity of 0.98, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97. Conclusions: Our results highlight significant differences in clinical factors between bounce and recurrence in post-RT patients. The multivariate logistic regression differentiated the events with 94% accuracy for patients with a rising PSA value >2 subgroup. We highlight the possible improvement that could be accomplished by personalizing a PSA threshold for recurrence versus the Phoenix definition. This tool offers patients and providers a highly specific tool to differentiate between PSA recurrence and bounce, and may reduce stress and unnecessary testing, or help diagnosis recurrence faster. Next steps include prospective validation of the model to assess the impact on clinical practice costs, patient experience, and cancer outcomes.
The Incidence of Pouch Neoplasia Following Ileal Pouch–Anal Anastomosis in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Abstract Background Ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the standard restorative procedure following proctocolectomy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who require colectomy. However, removal of the diseased colon does not eliminate the risk of pouch neoplasia. We aimed to assess the incidence of pouch neoplasia in IBD patients following IPAA. Methods All patients at a large tertiary center with International Classification of Diseases–Ninth Revision/International Classification of Diseases–Tenth Revision codes for IBD who underwent IPAA and had subsequent pouchoscopy were identified using a clinical notes search from January 1981 to February 2020. Relevant demographic, clinical, endoscopic, and histologic data were abstracted. Results In total, 1319 patients were included (43.9% women). Most had ulcerative colitis (95.2%). Out of 1319 patients, 10 (0.8%) developed neoplasia following IPAA. Neoplasia of the pouch was seen in 4 cases with neoplasia of the cuff or rectum seen in 5 cases. One patient had neoplasia of the prepouch, pouch, and cuff. Types of neoplasia included low-grade dysplasia (n = 7), high-grade dysplasia (n = 1), colorectal cancer (n = 1), and mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma (n = 1). Presence of extensive colitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, backwash ileitis, and rectal dysplasia at the time of IPAA were significantly associated with increased risk of pouch neoplasia. Conclusions The incidence of pouch neoplasia in IBD patients who have undergone IPAA is relatively low. Extensive colitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and backwash ileitis prior to IPAA and rectal dysplasia at the time of IPAA raise the risk of pouch neoplasia significantly. A limited surveillance program might be appropriate for patients with IPAA even with a history of colorectal neoplasia.
Budesonide Maintenance in Microscopic Colitis: Clinical Outcomes and Safety Profile From a Population-Based Study
INTRODUCTION: Outcomes and safety of budesonide maintenance therapy in microscopic colitis (MC) are not well known. METHODS: Adult residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, diagnosed with MC (2002–2019) and treated with budesonide were identified using the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Response was assessed at 12 ± 4 weeks after initiation of therapy and defined as complete (resolution of diarrhea), partial (≥50% improvement in the number of bowel movements), nonresponse (<50% improvement), and intolerance (discontinued because of side effects). For safety outcomes, cases (budesonide maintenance) and MC controls (no budesonide therapy) were matched by sex and age at diagnosis (±2 years). RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were identified, of whom 162 (36.0%) were treated with budesonide for induction of clinical remission (median age 67 [23–91] years and 126 women [77.8%] ). Clinical outcomes for induction were as follows: 130 (80.2%) complete response, 22 (13.6%) partial response, 8 (4.9%) no response, and 2 (1.2%) intolerance. After induction, 96 (63.2%) had recurrence after discontinuation, of whom 27 (28.1%) required further budesonide induction treatment without maintenance, 56 (58.3%) required long-term budesonide maintenance, and 13 (13.5%) were treated with other therapies. Of those receiving budesonide maintenance, all responded (55 [98.2%] complete and 1 [1.8%] partial). No patient stopped maintenance from adverse events. The median duration of follow-up was 5.6 years (0.3–18.9). There was no significant difference between cases and controls in the incidence of osteopenia/osteoporosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, glaucoma, or cataracts. DISCUSSION: The long-term use of budesonide in MC seems to be effective and generally well tolerated with limited adverse effects.