Time Trends and Variation in the Use of Active Surveillance for Management of Low-risk Prostate Cancer in the US

Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Using Protocol-Directed Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

Importance

Outcomes from protocol-directed active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancers are needed to support decision-making.

Objective

To characterize the long-term oncological outcomes of patients receiving active surveillance in a multicenter, protocol-directed cohort.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) is a prospective cohort study initiated in 2008. A cohort of 2155 men with favorable-risk prostate cancer and no prior treatment were enrolled at 10 North American centers through August 2022.

Exposure

Active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Cumulative incidence of biopsy grade reclassification, treatment, metastasis, prostate cancer mortality, overall mortality, and recurrence after treatment in patients treated after the first or subsequent surveillance biopsies.

Results

Among 2155 patients with localized prostate cancer, the median follow-up was 7.2 years, median age was 63 years, 83% were White, 7% were Black, 90% were diagnosed with grade group 1 cancer, and median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 5.2 ng/mL. Ten years after diagnosis, the incidence of biopsy grade reclassification and treatment were 43% (95% CI, 40%-45%) and 49% (95% CI, 47%-52%), respectively. There were 425 and 396 patients treated after confirmatory or subsequent surveillance biopsies (median of 1.5 and 4.6 years after diagnosis, respectively) and the 5-year rates of recurrence were 11% (95% CI, 7%-15%) and 8% (95% CI, 5%-11%), respectively. Progression to metastatic cancer occurred in 21 participants and there were 3 prostate cancer-related deaths. The estimated rates of metastasis or prostate cancer-specific mortality at 10 years after diagnosis were 1.4% (95% CI, 0.7%-2%) and 0.1% (95% CI, 0%-0.4%), respectively; overall mortality in the same time period was 5.1% (95% CI, 3.8%-6.4%).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, 10 years after diagnosis, 49% of men remained free of progression or treatment, less than 2% developed metastatic disease, and less than 1% died of their disease. Later progression and treatment during surveillance were not associated with worse outcomes. These results demonstrate active surveillance as an effective management strategy for patients diagnosed with favorable-risk prostate cancer.

Genomics in active surveillance and post-prostatectomy patients: A review of when and how to use effectively

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a significant health burden globally, ranking as the most diagnosed cancer among men and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Conventional treatment methods such as radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy have significant side effects which often impact quality of life. As our understanding of the natural history and progression of PCa has evolved, so has the evolution of management options.

RECENT FINDINGS

Active surveillance (AS) has become an increasingly favored approach to the management of very low, low, and properly selected favorable intermediate risk PCa. AS permits ongoing observation and postpones intervention until definitive treatment is required. There are, however, challenges with selecting patients for AS, which further emphasizes the need for more precise tools to better risk stratify patients and choose candidates more accurately. Tissue-based biomarkers, such as ProMark, Prolaris, GPS (formerly Oncotype DX), and Decipher, are valuable because they improve the accuracy of patient selection for AS and offer important information on the prognosis and severity of disease. By enabling patients to be categorized according to their risk profiles, these biomarkers help physicians and patients make better informed treatment choices and lower the possibility of overtreatment. Even with their potential, further standardization and validation of these biomarkers is required to guarantee their broad clinical utility. Active surveillance has emerged as a preferred strategy for managing low-risk prostate cancer, and tissue-based biomarkers play a crucial role in refining patient selection and risk stratification. Standardization and validation of these biomarkers are essential to ensure their widespread clinical use and optimize patient outcomes.

Fundamentals and recent advances in the evaluation and management of medullary thyroid carcinoma

Medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) is a rare primary neuroendocrine thyroid carcinoma that is distinct from other thyroid or neuroendocrine cancers. Most cases of MTC are sporadic, although MTC exhibits a high degree of heritability as part of the multiple endocrine neoplasia syndromes. REarranged during Transfection (RET) mutations are the primary oncogenic drivers and advances in molecular profiling have revealed that MTC is enriched in druggable alterations. Surgery at an early stage is the only chance for cure, but many patients present with or develop metastases. C-cell-specific calcitonin trajectory and structural doubling times are critical biomarkers to inform prognosis, extent of surgery, likelihood of residual disease, and need for additional therapy. Recent advances in the role of active surveillance, regionally directed therapies for localized disease, and systemic therapy with multi-kinase and RET-specific inhibitors for progressive/metastatic disease have significantly improved outcomes for patients with MTC.

The impact of genomic biomarkers on a clinical risk prediction model for upgrading/upstaging among men with favorable-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The challenge of distinguishing indolent from aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) complicates decision-making for men considering active surveillance (AS). Genomic classifiers (GCs) may improve risk stratification by predicting end points such as upgrading or upstaging (UG/US). The aim of this study was to assess the impact of GCs on UG/US risk prediction in a clinicopathologic model.

METHODS

Participants had favorable-risk PCa (cT1-2, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≤15 ng/mL, and Gleason grade group 1 [GG1]/low-volume GG2). A prediction model was developed for 864 men at the University of California, San Francisco, with standard clinical variables (cohort 1), and the model was validated for 2267 participants from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry (cohort 2). Logistic regression was used to compute the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to develop a prediction model for UG/US at prostatectomy. A GC (Oncotype Dx Genomic Prostate Score [GPS] or Prolaris) was then assessed to improve risk prediction.

RESULTS

The prediction model included biopsy GG1 versus GG2 (odds ratio [OR], 5.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.73-9.10); PSA (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.20; per 1 ng/mL), percent positive cores (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02; per 1%), prostate volume (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; per mL), and age (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07; per year), with AUC 0.70 (cohort 1) and AUC 0.69 (cohort 2). GPS was associated with UG/US (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; p < .01) and AUC 0.72, which indicates a comparable performance to the prediction model.

CONCLUSIONS

GCs did not substantially improve a clinical prediction model for UG/US, a short-term and imperfect surrogate for clinically relevant disease outcomes.

Prostatic Urethral Length on MRI Potentially Predicts Late Genitourinary Toxicity After Prostate Cancer Radiation

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of our study was to evaluate pretreatment prostate quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements and clinical characteristics in predicting genitourinary (GU) toxicity after radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-institution retrospective cohort study, we evaluated patients with prostate adenocarcinoma who underwent MRI within 6 months before completing definitive RT and follow-up information in our GU toxicity database from June 2016 to February 2023. MRI measurements included quantitative urethra, prostate, and bladder measurements. GU toxicity was physician-scored using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v4.0) with acute toxicity defined as ≤180 days and late defined as >180 days. Multivariable logistic regression model was constructed for grade ≥2 acute toxicity and Cox proportional hazards regression for late toxicity, adjusted for clinical factors and RT method.

RESULTS

A total of 361 men (median age 68 years, interquartile range [IQR] 62-73) were included; 14.4% (50/347) men experienced grade ≥2 acute toxicity. Brachytherapy (odds ratio [OR]: 2.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5-5.8), P < 0.01) was associated with increased odds of acute GU toxicity, and longer MUL (OR: 0.41 [95%CI: 0.18-0.92], P = 0.03) with decreased odds. Median follow-up for late toxicity was 15.0 months (IQR: 9.0-28.0) with approximately 88.7% and 72.0% patients free of toxicity at 1 and 3 years, respectively. Only longer prostatic urethral length (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.6, 95%CI: 1.2-2.1, P < 0.01) was associated with increased risk of late GU toxicity, notably urinary frequency/urgency symptoms (HR: 1.7 [95%CI: 1.3-2.3], P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Longer prostatic urethral length measured on prostate MRI is independently associated with higher risk of developing late grade ≥2 GU toxicity after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. This pretreatment metric may be potentially valuable in risk-stratification models for quality of life following prostate RT.

Oncological Outcomes in Men With Favorable Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer Enrolled in Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND/AIM

To evaluate the long-term oncological outcomes in men with intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa) enrolled in active surveillance (AS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From April 2015 to December 2022, 30 men with Gleason score 3+4/ISUP Grade Group2 (GG2), greatest percentage of cancer (GPC) ≤50%, Gleason pattern 4 ≤10%, ≤3 positive biopsy cores were enrolled in AS. All patients underwent confirmatory transperineal saturation biopsy (SPBx: 20 cores) 12 months from diagnosis plus multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMRI) evaluation. At the last follow-up, 68Ga prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron-emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) was added: lesions with PIRADS score ≥3 and/or standardized uptake value (SUVmax) >5 were submitted to four targeted cores.

RESULTS

Three out of 30 (10%) men with GG2 PCa were reclassified at confirmatory biopsy. At the last follow-up (median 5.2 years), only 2 of 27 (7.4%) men were reclassified and 23/30 (76.6%) continued AS.

CONCLUSION

Men with favorable GG2 PCa enrolled in AS have good long-term oncological results. The use of selective criteria (i.e., SPBx, mpMRI, PSMA PET/CT) reduces the risk of reclassification.

Biparametric MRI in prostate cancer during active surveillance: is it safe?

Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred option for patients presenting with low-intermediate-risk prostate cancer. MRI now plays a crucial role for baseline assessment and ongoing monitoring of AS. The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations aid radiological assessment of progression; however, current guidelines do not advise on MRI protocols nor on frequency. Biparametric (bp) imaging without contrast administration offers advantages such as reduced costs and increased throughput, with similar outcomes to multiparametric (mp) MRI shown in the biopsy naïve setting. In AS follow-up, the paradigm shifts from MRI lesion detection to assessment of progression, and patients have the further safety net of continuing clinical surveillance. As such, bpMRI may be appropriate in clinically stable patients on routine AS follow-up pathways; however, there is currently limited published evidence for this approach. It should be noted that mpMRI may be mandated in certain patients and potentially offers additional advantages, including improving image quality, new lesion detection, and staging accuracy. Recently developed AI solutions have enabled higher quality and faster scanning protocols, which may help mitigate against disadvantages of bpMRI. In this article, we explore the current role of MRI in AS and address the need for contrast-enhanced sequences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Active surveillance is the preferred plan for patients with lower-risk prostate cancer, and MRI plays a crucial role in patient selection and monitoring; however, current guidelines do not currently recommend how or when to perform MRI in follow-up. KEY POINTS: Noncontrast biparametric MRI has reduced costs and increased throughput and may be appropriate for monitoring stable patients. Multiparametric MRI may be mandated in certain patients, and contrast potentially offers additional advantages. AI solutions enable higher quality, faster scanning protocols, and could mitigate the disadvantages of biparametric imaging.

What is cancer? A focus on Grade Group 1 prostate cancer

Since the widespread adoption of prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer, the prevalence of Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer has risen. Historically, these patients were subjected to overtreatment of this otherwise indolent disease process, leading to significant quality-of-life detriments. Active surveillance as a primary management strategy has allowed for a focus on early detection while minimising morbidity from unnecessary intervention. Here we provide a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of GG1 prostatic adenocarcinoma, including its histological features, genomic differentiators, clinical progression, and implications for treatment guidelines, all supporting the movement to reclassify GG1 disease as a non-cancerous entity.

Malpractice Trends Involving Active Surveillance Across Cancers

OBJECTIVE

To characterize malpractice trends related to active surveillance (AS) as a treatment strategy across cancers.

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance is increasingly considered a viable management strategy for low-risk cancers. Since a subset of AS cases will progress, metastasize, or exhibit cancer-related mortality, a significant barrier to implementation is the perceived risk of litigation from missing the window for cure. Data on malpractice trends across cancers are lacking.

METHODS

Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases were searched from 1990 to 2022 for malpractice cases involving active surveillance in conjunction with thyroid cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, breast cancer, or lymphoma. Queries included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions. Data were compiled on legal allegations, procedures performed, and verdicts or settlements rendered.

RESULTS

Five prostate cancer cases were identified that pertained to active surveillance. Two cases involved alleged deliberate indifference from AS as a management strategy but were ruled as following the appropriate standard of care. In contrast, 3 cases involved alleged physician negligence for not explicitly recommending AS as a treatment option after complications from surgery occurred. All cases showed documented informed consent for AS, leading to defense verdicts in favor of the physicians. No cases of AS-related malpractice were identified for other cancer types.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, no evidence of successful malpractice litigation for active surveillance in cancer has been identified. Given the legal precedent detailed in the identified cases and increasing support across national guidelines, active surveillance represents a sound management option in appropriate low-risk cancers, with no increased risk of medicolegal exposure.

The association of patient and disease characteristics with the overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2016

BACKGROUND

Although active surveillance is the preferred management for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), some men remain at risk of overtreatment with definitive local therapy. We hypothesized that baseline characteristics may be associated with overtreatment and represent a potential source of health disparities. We therefore examined the associations of patient and disease characteristics with the surgical overtreatment of low-risk PCa.

METHODS

We identified men aged 45-75 years with cT1 cN0 cM0 prostate adenocarcinoma with biopsy Gleason score 6 and PSA < 10 ng/ml from 2010-2016 in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP). We evaluated the associations of baseline characteristics with clinically insignificant PCa (iPCa) at RP (i.e., "overtreatment"), defined as organ-confined (i.e., pT2) Gleason 3 + 3 disease, using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 36,088 men with low-risk PCa who underwent RP. The unadjusted rate of iPCa decreased during the study period, from 54.7% in 2010 to 40.0% in 2016. In multivariable analyses adjusting for baseline characteristics, older age (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.98), later year of diagnosis (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.67 for 2016 vs. 2010), Black race (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.91), treatment at an academic/research program (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73-0.91), higher PSA (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90-0.92), and higher number of positive biopsy cores (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.86-0.88) were independently associated with a lower risk of overtreatment (iPCa) at RP. Conversely, a greater number of biopsy cores sampled (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.02) was independently associated with an increased risk of overtreatment (iPCa) at RP.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed an ~27% reduction in rates of overtreatment of men with low-risk PCa over the study period. Several patient, disease, and structural characteristics are associated with detection of iPCa at RP and can inform the management of men with low-risk PCa to reduce potential overtreatment.

Tissue-Based Genomic Testing in Prostate Cancer: 10-Year Analysis of National Trends on the Use of Prolaris, Decipher, ProMark, and Oncotype DX

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) management is moving towards patient-tailored strategies. Advances in molecular and genetic profiling of tumor tissues, integrated with clinical risk assessments, provide deeper insights into disease aggressiveness. This study aims to offer a comprehensive overview of the pivotal genomic tests supporting PCa treatment decisions, analyzing-through real-world data-trends in their use and the growth of supporting literature evidence.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted using the extensive PearlDiver™ Mariner database, which contains de-identified patient records, in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were employed to identify patients diagnosed with PCa during the study period-2011 to 2021. We determined the utilization of primary tissue-based genetic tests (Oncocyte DX®, Prolaris®, Decipher®, and ProMark®) across all patients diagnosed with PCa. Subsequently, within the overall PCa cohort, patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) and received genetic testing postoperatively were identified. The yearly distribution of these tests and the corresponding trends were illustrated with graphs.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1,561,203 patients with a PCa diagnosis were recorded. Of these, 20,748 underwent tissue-based genetic testing following diagnosis, representing 1.3% of the total cohort. An increasing trend was observed in the use of all genetic tests. Linear regression analysis showed a statistically significant increase over time in the use of individual tests (all p-values < 0.05). Among the patients who underwent RP, 3076 received genetic analysis following surgery, representing 1.27% of this group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis indicates a growing trend in the utilization of tissue-based genomic testing for PCa. Nevertheless, they are utilized in less than 2% of PCa patients, whether at initial diagnosis or after surgical treatment. Although it is anticipated that their use may increase as more scientific evidence becomes available, their role requires further elucidation.

A Comprehensive National Survey of Prostate-specific Antigen Testing and Prostate Cancer Management in France: Uncovering Regional and Temporal Disparities

We report nationwide real-life practice in the management of prostate cancer (PC) in France in a population of 4936750 men. All prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood tests performed between 2006 and 2018 were recorded in a National Health registry, which allowed to identify 692516 men diagnosed with PC and a control population consisting of 3899509 men without PC. PSA tests, age at diagnosis, treatments, and survival were analysed. Their management was analysed by age range and compared in the different French regions. Disparities were found in age at PSA testing and management approaches (surveillance, and local and systemic therapies). We found that 50% of men had received five PSA blood tests, but the first PSA test was taken late in life, with a peak in the decade between 65 and 75 yr of age. Adoption of monitoring was low (12%). Older men appeared to receive a late diagnosis with reduced chances of curative therapy and a subsequent increase in mortality, but cautious interpretation of our data is warranted in view of competing morbidities and other causes of death. The incidence of metastases at diagnosis, indicated by the use of systemic therapies, increased progressively from 2011 onwards. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we report nationwide real-life practice in the management of prostate cancer (PC) in France in a population of 4936750 men, including 692516 patients with PC. We found that the first prostate-specific antigen test is taken too late in life, leading to a late diagnosis with reduced chances of curative therapy and a subsequent increase in mortality.

A Phase II Prospective Blinded Trial of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and In-Bore Biopsy in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the added benefit of multiparametric (mp)MRI risk stratification during active surveillance.

METHODS

This prospective, single-arm, nonrandomized study included 82 men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We compared two biopsy strategies in parallel. The first biopsy strategy was an in-bore and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy in men with suspicious mpMRI findings. The second was a TRUS biopsy in all 82 men, blinded to the results of the previously performed mpMRI.

RESULTS

We identified 27/82 men with suspicious mpMRI. Of those 27 men, we detected 8/27 with csPCa on biopsy, and we identified two men with in-bore biopsy exclusively, three men with TRUS biopsy exclusively, and three men with both biopsy strategies. Of the 55/82 men with nonsuspicious mpMRI (who only received TRUS biopsies), two men had csPCa. TRUS biopsy of the entire cohort of 82 men would have led to the correct diagnosis of 80% men with csPCa, requiring all 82 men to receive biopsies (csPCa in 10% of the 82 biopsies). Conducting in-bore biopsies plus TRUS biopsies in men with suspicious mpMRI would have also led to the detection of 80% of men with csPCa, requiring only 27 men to receive biopsies (csPCa in 30% of the 27 biopsies).

CONCLUSION

The combination of TRUS and in-bore biopsies, limited to men with suspicious mpMRI, resulted in a similar detection rate of csPCa compared to TRUS biopsies of all men but required only one-third of men to undergo biopsy. Our results indicate that in-bore and TRUS biopsies continue to complement each other.

Oncologic Outcomes of Testosterone Therapy for Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Population-based Analysis

Background and objective

There is insufficient evidence on the oncologic risks of testosterone therapy for men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. We carried out a retrospective study to assess the effect of testosterone therapy on oncologic outcomes for men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Methods

Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data were used to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2008 to 2017 who were managed with active surveillance and received testosterone (n = 167) or no testosterone (n = 6658) therapy. Outcomes included conversion from active surveillance to active treatment (radical prostatectomy, cryotherapy, radiation, or androgen deprivation therapy), prostate cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality. Statistically significant factors on univariable analysis were included in a Cox proportional-hazards regression model for multivariable analysis.

Key findings and limitations

The median age was 71 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 68-74) in the testosterone group and 72 yr (IQR 69-75) in the no-testosterone group, with corresponding median follow-up after prostate cancer diagnosis of 5.2 yr (IQR 3.4-7.8) and 4.7 yr (IQR 3.2-6.9). There were no prostate cancer-specific deaths in the testosterone group and 39 (0.6%) in the no-testosterone group. Testosterone therapy was not associated with conversion to active treatment (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.97; p = 0.033) or overall mortality (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.68-1.53; p > 0.9).

Conclusions and clinical implications

In the first population-based, nationally representative study of testosterone therapy for men on active surveillance for prostate cancer, testosterone therapy did not increase the risk of conversion to active therapy or worsen mortality. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Patient summary

For men on active surveillance for prostate cancer, we assessed the effect of testosterone therapy. We found that testosterone therapy did not increase the risk of proceeding to active therapy or of death from prostate cancer.

Cancer statistics, 2024

Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population-based cancer occurrence and outcomes using incidence data collected by central cancer registries (through 2020) and mortality data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics (through 2021). In 2024, 2,001,140 new cancer cases and 611,720 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Cancer mortality continued to decline through 2021, averting over 4 million deaths since 1991 because of reductions in smoking, earlier detection for some cancers, and improved treatment options in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings. However, these gains are threatened by increasing incidence for 6 of the top 10 cancers. Incidence rates increased during 2015-2019 by 0.6%-1% annually for breast, pancreas, and uterine corpus cancers and by 2%-3% annually for prostate, liver (female), kidney, and human papillomavirus-associated oral cancers and for melanoma. Incidence rates also increased by 1%-2% annually for cervical (ages 30-44 years) and colorectal cancers (ages <55 years) in young adults. Colorectal cancer was the fourth-leading cause of cancer death in both men and women younger than 50 years in the late-1990s but is now first in men and second in women. Progress is also hampered by wide persistent cancer disparities; compared to White people, mortality rates are two-fold higher for prostate, stomach and uterine corpus cancers in Black people and for liver, stomach, and kidney cancers in Native American people. Continued national progress will require increased investment in cancer prevention and access to equitable treatment, especially among American Indian and Alaska Native and Black individuals.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Active Surveillance Without Annual Rebiopsy in Patients with Grade Group 1 or 2 Prostate Cancer: The Prospective PROMM-AS Study

Background

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may allow patients with prostate cancer (PC) on active surveillance (AS) to avoid repeat prostate biopsies during monitoring.

Objective

To assess the ability of mpMRI to reduce guideline-mandated biopsy and to predict grade group upgrading in patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) 1 or GG 2 PC using Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) scores. The hypothesis was that the AS disqualification rate (ASDQ) rate could be reduced to 15%.

Design setting and participants

PROMM-AS was a prospective study assessing 2-yr outcomes for an mpMRI-guided AS protocol. A 12 mo after AS inclusion on the basis of MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy (FBx), all patients underwent mpMRI. For patients with stable mpMRI (PRECISE 1-3), repeat biopsy was deferred and follow-up mpMRI was scheduled for 12 mo later. Patients with mpMRI progression (PRECISE 4-5) underwent FBx. At the end of the study, follow-up FBx was indicated for all patients.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for upgrading to GG 2 in the GG 1 group, and to GG 3 in the GG 2 group on MRI. We performed regression analyses that included clinical variables.

Results and limitations

The study included 101 patients with PC (60 GG 1 and 41 GG 2). Histopathological progression occurred in 31 patients, 18 in the GG 1 group and 13 in the GG 2 group. Thus, the aim of reducing the ASDQ rate to 15% was not achieved. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for PRECISE scoring of MRI were 94%, 64%, 81%, and 88% in the GG 1 group, and 92%, 50%, 92%, and 50%, respectively, in the GG 2 group. On regression analysis, initial prostate-specific antigen (p < 0.001) and higher PRECISE score (4-5; p = 0.005) were significant predictors of histological progression of GG 1 PC. Higher PRECISE score (p = 0.009), initial Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score (p = 0.009), previous negative biopsy (p = 0.02), and percentage Gleason pattern 4 (p = 0.04) were significant predictors of histological progression of GG 2 PC. Limitations include extensive MRI reading experience, the small sample size, and limited follow-up.

Conclusions

MRI-guided monitoring of patients on AS using PRECISE scores avoided unnecessary follow-up biopsies in 88% of patients with GG 1 PC and predicted upgrading during 2-yr follow-up in both GG 1 and GG 2 PC.

Patient summary

We investigated whether MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scores can be used to guide whether patients with lower-risk prostate cancer who are on active surveillance (AS) need to undergo repeat biopsies. Follow-up biopsy was deferred for 1 year for patients with a stable score and performed for patients whose score progressed. After 24 months on AS, all men underwent MRI and biopsy. Among patients with grade group 1 cancer and a stable MRI score, 88% avoided biopsy. For patients with MRI score progression, AS termination was correctly recommended in 81% of grade group 1 and 92% of grade group 2 cases.

Opportunistic prostate-specific antigen testing in Norwegian men: a public health challenge

OBJECTIVE

To describe age-specific prostate-specific antigen (PSA) distributions and resulting prostate cancer diagnoses that arise from population-wide opportunistic PSA testing.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Over 8 million PSA tests were performed on >1.4 million Norwegian men from 2000 to 2020. During this period 43 486 men were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer. Most of the PSA testing reflected opportunistic testing. Age-specific PSA value distributions were constructed for men aged 45-75 years with and without prostate cancer.

RESULTS

The distributions of PSA values in men with and without prostate cancer widened with age and overlapped extensively from 3 to 7 ng/mL. Localised prostate cancer diagnoses increased 10-fold from the age of 45 to 75 years. PSA testing identified intermediate- or high-grade cancers in 21% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19-23%) of men aged 50-54 years and 42% (95% CI 41-43%) of men aged 70-74 years. Grade group (GG)1, GG2, GG3 and ≥GG4 constituted 49%, 31%, 10% and 10% of cancers identified at age 50-54 years and 26%, 26%, 18%, and 30% of cancers identified at age 70-74 years.

CONCLUSION

Opportunistic PSA testing increases with ageing and often generates values that cannot discriminate benign prostate enlargement from prostate cancer. A clinical cascade using additional imaging or serum tests is necessary to avoid negative biopsies and the overdiagnosis of indolent disease. The declining specificity of PSA testing with ageing poses a significant public health challenge especially among older men aged ≥70 years.

Radiation Therapy Summary of the AUA/ASTRO Guideline on Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Our purpose was to develop a summary of recommendations regarding the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer based on the American Urologic Association/ ASTRO Guideline on Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer.

METHODS

The American Urologic Association and ASTRO convened a multidisciplinary, expert panel to develop recommendations based on a systematic literature review using an a priori defined consensus-building methodology. The topics covered were risk assessment, staging, risk-based management, principles of management including active surveillance, surgery, radiation, and follow-up after treatment. Presented are recommendations from the guideline most pertinent to radiation oncologists with an additional statement on health equity, diversity, and inclusion related to guideline panel composition and the topic of clinically localized prostate cancer.

SUMMARY

Staging, risk assessment, and management options in prostate cancer have advanced over the last decade and significantly affect shared decision-making for treatment management. Current advancements and controversies discussed to guide staging, risk assessment, and treatment recommendations include the use of advanced imaging and tumor genomic profiling. An essential active surveillance strategy includes prostate-specific antigen monitoring and periodic digital rectal examination with changes triggering magnetic resonance imaging and possible biopsy thereafter and histologic progression or greater tumor volume prompting consideration of definitive local treatment. The panel recommends against routine use of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) for patients with prostate cancer after prostatectomy with negative nodes and an undetectable prostate-specific antigen, while acknowledging that patients at highest risk of recurrence were relatively poorly represented in the 3 largest randomized trials comparing adjuvant RT to early salvage and that a role may exist for adjuvant RT in selected patients at highest risk. RT for clinically localized prostate cancer has evolved rapidly, with new trial results, therapeutic combinations, and technological advances. The recommendation of moderately hypofractionated RT has not changed, and the updated guideline incorporates a conditional recommendation for the use of ultrahypofractionated treatment. Health disparities and inequities exist in the management of clinically localized prostate cancer across the continuum of care that can influence guideline concordance.

Patient perspectives on factors influencing active surveillance adherence for low-risk prostate cancer: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the United States. Treatment guidelines recommend active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, which involves monitoring for progression, to avoid or delay definitive treatments and their side effects. Despite increased uptake, adherence to surveillance remains a challenge.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured, qualitative, virtual interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), with men (15) who were or had been on active surveillance for their low-risk prostate cancer in 2020. Interviews were transcribed and coded under TDF's behavioral theory-based domains. We analyzed domains related to adherence to surveillance using constructivist grounded theory to identify themes influencing decision processes in adherence.

RESULTS

The TDF domains of emotion, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, and social influences were most relevant to surveillance adherence-. From these four TDF domains, three themes emerged as underlying decision processes: trust in surveillance as treatment, quality of life, and experiences of self and others. Positive perceptions of these three themes supported adherence while negative perceptions contributed to non-adherence (i.e., not receiving follow-up or stopping surveillance). The relationship between the TDF domains and themes provided a theoretical process describing factors impacting active surveillance adherence for men with low-risk prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Men identified key factors impacting active surveillance adherence that provide opportunities for clinical implementation and practice improvement. Future efforts should focus on multi-level interventions that foster trust in surveillance as treatment, emphasize quality of life benefits and enhance patients' interpersonal experiences while on surveillance to optimize adherence.

Value-based payment models and management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of urologist participation in value-based payment models on the initial management of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

METHODS

Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2019, with 1 year of follow-up, were assigned to their primary urologist, each of whom was then aligned to a value-based payment model (the merit-based incentive payment system [MIPS], accountable care organization [ACO] without financial risk, and ACO with risk). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was used to measure the association between payment model participation and treatment of prostate cancer. Additional models estimated the effects of payment model participation on use of treatment in men with very high risk (i.e., >75%) of non-cancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis (i.e., a group of men for whom treatment is generally not recommended) and price-standardized prostate cancer spending in the 12 months after diagnosis.

RESULTS

Treatment did not vary by payment model, both overall (MIPS-67% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs without risk-66% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs with risk-66% [95% CI 64%-68%]). Similarly, treatment did not vary among men with very high risk of non-cancer mortality by payment model (MIPS-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs without risk-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs with risk-51% [95% CI 45%-56%]). Adjusted spending was similar across payment models (MIPS-$16,501 [95% CI $16,222-$16,780], ACOs without risk-$16,140 [95% CI $15,852-$16,429], ACOs with risk-$16,117 [95% CI $15,585-$16,649]).

CONCLUSIONS

How urologists participate in value-based payment models is not associated with treatment, potential overtreatment, and prostate cancer spending in men with newly diagnosed disease.

The Impact of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy on Recurrence Outcomes After Initial Active Surveillance: Results from a Large Institutional Cohort

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer (PCa) involves regular monitoring for disease progression. The aim is to avoid unnecessary treatment while ensuring appropriate and timely treatment for those whose disease progresses. AS has emerged as the standard of care for low-grade (Gleason grade 1, GG 1) PCa. Opponents are concerned that initial undersampling and delay of definitive management for patients with GG 2 disease may lead to adverse outcomes. We sought to determine whether the timing for definitive management of GG 2 PCa, either upfront or after initial AS, affects recurrence outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

Participants were diagnosed with cT1-2N0/xM0/x, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <20 ng/ml, and GG 1-2 PCa between 2000 and 2020 and underwent immediate RP for GG 2 or AS followed by delayed RP on upgrading to GG 2. The outcome was recurrence-free survival (RFS) after surgery, with recurrence defined as either biochemical failure (2 PSA measurements ≥0.2 ng/ml) or a second treatment. Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to calculate associations between the timing for definitive RP and the risk of recurrence, adjusted for age at diagnosis, percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPC), PSA density, PSA before RP, year of diagnosis, surgical margins, genomic risk score, and prostate MRI findings.

KEY FINDINGS

Of the 1259 men who met the inclusion criteria, 979 underwent immediate RP after diagnosis of GG 2, 190 underwent RP within 12 mo of upgrading to GG 2 on AS, and 90 men underwent RP >12 mo after upgrading to GG 2. The 5-yr RFS rates were 81% for the immediate RP group, 80% for the delayed RP ≤12 mo, and 70% for the delayed RP >12 mo group (univariate log-rank p = 0.03). Cox multivariable regression demonstrated no difference in RFS outcomes between immediate RP for GG 2 disease and delayed RP after upgrading on AS. PPC (hazard ratio [HR] per 10% increment 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.15; p = 0.01) and PSA before RP (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.09; p < 0.01) were significantly associated with the risk of recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

PPC and PSA before RP, but not the timing of definitive surgery after upgrade to GG 2, were associated with the risk of PCa recurrence after RP on multivariable analysis. These findings support the safety of AS and delayed definitive therapy for a subset of patients with GG 2 disease.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In a large group of 1259 patients with low-grade prostate cancer, we found that delaying surgical treatment after an initial period of active surveillance resulted in no differences in prostate cancer recurrence. Our results support the safety of active surveillance for low-grade prostate cancer.

The impact of NCCN-compliant multidisciplinary conference on the uptake of active surveillance among eligible patients with localized prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

We sought to investigate the impact of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-compliant multidisciplinary conference on the uptake of active surveillance (AS) among eligible patients with prostate cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective review of our AS database was performed. Patients who are eligible for AS who sought a second opinion at a comprehensive cancer center (2010-2021) were presented to the multidisciplinary Localized Prostate Cancer Conference (LPCC) that includes urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and patient advocates. Cochrane Armitage test was used to examine trends over time. Multivariable regression models were fit to evaluate variables associated with the receipt of AS.

RESULTS

Seven hundred twelve patients were identified (19% NCCN very low risk, 32% low risk, and 49% intermediate favorable risk). 43% were recommended AS as the preferred option by the community compared to 68% by LPCC, and 65% elected AS. Recommending AS significantly increased between 2010 and 2021 by the community (from 26% to 57%) and by LPCC (from 52% to 82%), while the proportion of men who received AS increased from 47% to 80% during the same period (P < 0.0001 for all). More recent LPCC era 2017 to 2021 (OR 12.31, 95% CI, 5.60-27.03, P < 0.0001), African American race (OR 0.42, 95% CI, 0.18-0.96, P = 0.04), positive cores at biopsy (OR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.94-0.97, P < 0.0001), age (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 1.10-1.18, P < 0.0001), NCCN low risk (OR 0.25, 95% CI, 0.08-0.81, P = 0.02) and NCCN intermediate favorable risk (OR 0.03, 95% CI, 0.01-0.09, P < 0.0001) were associated with receipt of AS.

CONCLUSION

AS recommendation increased significantly over time by community urologists and to a higher extent by NCCN-compliant multidisciplinary conference. The Uptake of AS significantly increased within the same period. More recent LPCC era 2017 to 2021, African American race, the proportion of positive cores at biopsy, age, and NCCN risk were the main determinants of receipt of AS.

Biopsy and Erectile Functional Outcomes of Partial Prostate Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic summary of prospectively performed studies evaluating ablative therapies for the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) that included protocol-mandated assessment of (1) residual disease by post-treatment biopsy and/or (2) erectile functional outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search in September 2022. Studies were evaluated according to a predefined and registered plan in PROSPERO (CRD42022302777). Only prospective trials with protocol-mandated post-treatment prostate biopsies or functional assessments were included. Targeted focal therapy was the only ablation pattern with sufficient data to perform meta-analyses (29 studies, 1079 patients).

RESULTS

At baseline, 65.0% of patients treated with targeted focal therapy harbored grade group (GG) ≥2 PCa. One year after treatment, in-field treatment failure with ≥GG1 and ≥GG2 PCa occurred in 25.7% (range 11.1%-66.7%) and 8.8% (range 0%-27.8%) of men, respectively. In patients that received whole-gland biopsies 1year after ablation, residual ≥GG1 and ≥GG2 PCa was detected anywhere in the prostate in 43.7% (range 19.4%-71.7%) and 13.0% (range 0%-35.9%) of men. Erectile function was negatively affected by treatment, but 78.7% were potent 1year after targeted focal therapy (7 studies, 197 patients), and the average decrease in erectile function scores was 8.8% at 1year (21 studies, 760 patients).

CONCLUSION

Though long-term data after targeted focal therapy are limited, oncologic and treatment failure occurred in 13% and 9% (≥GG2 at 6-12months after treatment). Most men were able to maintain potency. This work can help benchmark new techniques and power future trials.

Uncovering the Changing Treatment Landscape for Low-risk Prostate Cancer in the USA from 2010 to 2020: Insights from the National Cancer Data Base

The management of prostate cancer (PCa) has evolved from a paradigm of "treat when caught early" to "treat only when necessary". Despite inconsistency in its use, active surveillance has evolved over the past two decades into the gold standard for management of low-risk PCa. Our objective was to investigate whether the use of expectant management (active surveillance, watchful waiting, no treatment) as a first-line approach for low-risk PCa has increased over the past decade. We queried the US National Cancer Data Base for men diagnosed with localized PCa between 2010 and 2020. Two multivariable logistic regression models with different two-way interaction terms (year of diagnosis × D'Amico risk classification, and year of diagnosis × International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] grade group) were fitted to predict the probability of undergoing expectant management versus active treatment. The predicted probability of expectant management increased from 13.7% in 2010 to 64.4% in 2020 for men with low-risk PCa, and from 12.9% in 2010 to 61.6% in 2020 for ISUP grade group 1 PCa (both pinteraction < 0.001). The frequency of expectant management for low-risk PCa has increased dramatically during the past decade. We expect this trend to further increase owing to the growing awareness of the harms of overtreatment of indolent disease. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the use of expectant management for prostate cancer between 2010 and 2020 in a large hospital-based registry from the USA. We found that the proportion of men receiving expectant management for low-risk prostate cancer is increasing. We conclude that growing awareness of the harms of overtreatment has profoundly affected trends for prostate cancer treatment in the USA.

Cancer Screening: Patient and Population Strategies

Although cancer has been the second leading cause of death for close to 100 years, progress has been made in reducing cancer mortality and morbidity, with the adoption of high-quality screening tests and treatment advances delivered at earlier stages of diagnosis. To achieve the high cancer screening rates demonstrated by some practices, proven effective strategies need to be broadly adopted at both the patient and population levels. Factors affecting cancer screening test completion and approaches to improvement are described both generally and for breast, lung, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers. Closing the racial disparity gap is a critical component of reaching cancer screening and prevention goals.

Outcomes of Biopsy Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in the Danish Population

BACKGROUND

Debate regarding a nomenclature change for grade group 1 (GG 1) prostate cancer to noncancer has been revived, as this could be a powerful tool in reducing the overtreatment of indolent disease.

OBJECTIVE

To describe outcomes for all men diagnosed with GG 1 prostate cancer in the Danish population, with a focus on men followed conservatively.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a population-based observational study using data from the Danish Prostate Registry.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We measured the cumulative incidence of curative treatment, endocrine treatment, and cause-specific mortality.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The cumulative incidence of endocrine therapy at 10 yr was 5.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.3-6.3%) for men with initial active surveillance and 21% (95% CI 19-23%) for men with initial watchful waiting for localized GG 1. In the GG1 cohort, the prostate cancer-specific mortality rate at 15 yr was 14% (95 CI% 11-16%) for men on watchful waiting, 10% (95 CI% 6.7-14%) for men with prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/ml on watchful waiting, and 16% (95 CI% 13-19%) for men who did not receive curative-intent treatment or histological assessment. The study is limited by the historic nature of the observations over a period during which diagnostic procedures and treatments have evolved.

CONCLUSIONS

GG 1 cancer can lead to disease-specific mortality in men with localized prostate cancer, and changing the nomenclature for all men may lead to undertreatment.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Key opinion leaders have suggested that prostate cancers of Gleason grade group 1 (GG 1) should be renamed as noncancer to reduce overtreatment. The argument is that low-grade cancer does not metastasize. However, our nationwide population-based study showed that death from prostate cancer can occur in some men diagnosed with GG 1 disease. These men should be considered in discussions on changing the name for GG 1 prostate cancer.

Patient and Context Factors in the Adoption of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Importance

Although active surveillance for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) has been recommended for years, its adoption at the population level is often limited.

Objective

To make active surveillance available for patients with LRPC using a research framework and to compare patient characteristics and clinical outcomes between those who receive active surveillance vs radical treatments at diagnosis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based, prospective cohort study was designed by a large multidisciplinary group of specialists and patients' representatives. The study was conducted within all 18 urology centers and 7 radiation oncology centers in the Piemonte and Valle d'Aosta Regional Oncology Network in Northwest Italy (approximate population, 4.5 million). Participants included patients with a new diagnosis of LRPC from June 2015 to December 2021. Data were analyzed from January to May 2023.

Exposure

At diagnosis, all patients were informed of the available treatment options by the urologist and received an information leaflet describing the benefits and risks of active surveillance compared with active treatments, either radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation treatment (RT). Patients choosing active surveillance were actively monitored with regular prostate-specific antigen testing, clinical examinations, and a rebiopsy at 12 months.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes of interest were proportion of patients choosing active surveillance or radical treatments, overall survival, and, for patients in active surveillance, treatment-free survival. Comparisons were analyzed with multivariable logistic or Cox models, considering centers as clusters.

Results

A total of 852 male patients (median [IQR] age, 70 [64-74] years) were included, and 706 patients (82.9%) chose active surveillance, with an increasing trend over time; 109 patients (12.8%) chose RP, and 37 patients (4.3%) chose RT. Median (IQR) follow-up was 57 (41-76) months. Worse prostate cancer prognostic factors were negatively associated with choosing active surveillance (eg, stage T2a vs T1c: odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.93), while patients who were older (eg, age ≥75 vs <65 years: OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 1.98-9.22), had higher comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2 vs 0: OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.02-3.85), underwent an independent revision of the first prostate biopsy (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.26-4.38) or underwent a multidisciplinary assessment (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.38-5.11) were more likely to choose active surveillance vs active treatment. After adjustment, center at which a patient was treated continued to be an important factor in the choice of treatment (intraclass correlation coefficient, 18.6%). No differences were detected in overall survival between active treatment and active surveillance. Treatment-free survival in the active surveillance cohort was 59.0% (95% CI, 54.8%-62.9%) at 24 months, 54.5% (95% CI, 50.2%-58.6%) at 36 months, and 47.0% (95% CI, 42.2%-51.7%) at 48 months.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this population-based cohort study of patients with LRPC, a research framework at system level as well as favorable prognostic factors, a multidisciplinary approach, and an independent review of the first prostate biopsy at patient-level were positively associated with high uptake of active surveillance, a practice largely underused before this study.

Patterns of multispecialty care for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the use of active surveillance

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary models of care have been advocated for prostate cancer (PC) to promote shared decision-making and facilitate quality care. Yet, how this model applies to low-risk disease where the preferred management is expectant remains unclear. Accordingly, we examined recent practice patterns in specialty visits for low/intermediate-risk PC and resultant use of active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

Using SEER-Medicare, we ascertained whether patients saw urology and radiation oncology (i.e., multispecialty care) versus urology alone, based on self-designated specialty codes, for newly diagnosed PC from 2010 to 2017. We also examined the association with AS, defined as the absence of treatment within 12 months of diagnosis. Time trends were analyzed using Cochran-Armitage test. Chi-squared and logistic regression analyses were applied to compare sociodemographic and clinicopathologic characteristics between these models of care.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients seeing both specialists was 35.5% and 46.5% for low- and intermediate-risk patients respectively. Trend analysis showed a decline in multispecialty care in low-risk patients (44.1% to 25.3% years 2010-2017; P < 0.001). Between 2010 and 2017, the use of AS increased 40.9% to 68.6% (P < 0.001) and 13.1% to 24.6% (P < 0.001) for patients seeing urology and those seeing both specialists respectively. Age, urban residence, higher education, SEER region, co-morbidities, frailty, Gleason score, predicted receipt of multispecialty care (all P < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake of AS among men with low-risk PC has occurred primarily under the purview of urologists. While selection is certainly at play, these data suggest that multispecialty care may not be required to promote the utilization of AS for men with low-risk PC.

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Past, Current, and Future Trends

In response to the rising incidence of indolent, low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to increased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in the 1990s, active surveillance (AS) emerged as a treatment modality to combat overtreatment by delaying or avoiding unnecessary definitive treatment and its associated morbidity. AS consists of regular monitoring of PSA levels, digital rectal exams, medical imaging, and prostate biopsies, so that definitive treatment is only offered when deemed necessary. This paper provides a narrative review of the evolution of AS since its inception and an overview of its current landscape and challenges. Although AS was initially only performed in a study setting, numerous studies have provided evidence for the safety and efficacy of AS which has led guidelines to recommend it as a treatment option for patients with low-risk PCa. For intermediate-risk disease, AS appears to be a viable option for those with favourable clinical characteristics. Over the years, the inclusion criteria, follow-up schedule and triggers for definitive treatment have evolved based on the results of various large AS cohorts. Given the burdensome nature of repeat biopsies, risk-based dynamic monitoring may further reduce overtreatment by avoiding repeat biopsies in selected patients.