Uptake of Active Surveillance for Very-Low-Risk Prostate Cancer in Sweden

DNA ploidy and PTEN as biomarkers for predicting aggressive disease in prostate cancer patients under active surveillance

BACKGROUND

Current risk stratification tools for prostate cancer patients under active surveillance (AS) may inadequately identify those needing treatment. We investigated DNA ploidy and PTEN as potential biomarkers to predict aggressive disease in AS patients.

METHODS

We assessed DNA ploidy by image cytometry and PTEN protein expression by immunohistochemistry in 3197 tumour-containing tissue blocks from 558 patients followed in AS at a Norwegian local hospital. The primary endpoint was treatment, with treatment failure (biochemical recurrence or initiation of salvage therapy) as the secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

The combined DNA ploidy and PTEN (DPP) status at diagnosis was associated with treatment-free survival in univariable- and multivariable analysis, with a HR for DPP-aberrant vs. DPP-normal tumours of 2.12 (p < 0.0001) and 1.94 (p < 0.0001), respectively. Integration of DNA ploidy and PTEN status with the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score improved risk stratification (c-index difference = 0.025; p = 0.0033). Among the treated patients, those with DPP-aberrant tumours exhibited a significantly higher likelihood of treatment failure (HR 2.01; p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

DNA ploidy and PTEN could serve as additional biomarkers to identify AS patients at increased risk of developing aggressive disease, enabling earlier intervention for nearly 50% of the patients that will eventually receive treatment with current protocol.

Has Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer Become Safer? Lessons Learned from a Global Clinical Registry

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Active surveillance (AS) has evolved into a widely applied treatment strategy for many men around the world with low-risk prostate cancer (or in selected cases intermediate-risk disease). Here, we report on the safety and acceptability of AS, and treatment outcomes for low- and intermediate-risk tumours over time in 14 623 men with follow-up of over 6 yr.

METHODS

Clinical data from 26 999 men on AS from 25 cohorts in 15 countries have been collected in an international database from 2000 onwards.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Across our predefined four time periods of 4 yr each (covering the period 2000-2016), there was no significant change in overall survival (OS). However, metastasis-free survival (MFS) rates have improved since the second period and were excellent (>99%). Treatment-free survival rates for earlier periods showed a slightly more rapid shift to radical treatment. Over time, there was a constant proportion of 5% of men for whom anxiety was registered as the reason for treatment alteration. There was, however, also a subset of 10-15% in whom treatment was changed, for which no apparent reason was available. In a subset of men (10-15%), tumour progression was the trigger for treatment. In men who opted for radical treatment, surgery was the most common treatment modality. In those men who underwent radical treatment, 90% were free from biochemical recurrence at 5 yr after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Our study confirms that AS was a safe management option over the full duration in this large multicentre cohort with long-term follow-up, given the 84.1% OS and 99.4% MFS at 10 yr. The probability of treatment at 10 yr was 20% in men with initial low-risk tumours and 31% in men with intermediate-risk tumours. New diagnostic modalities may improve the acceptability of follow-up using individual risk assessments, while safely broadening the use of AS in higher-risk tumours.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Active surveillance (AS) has evolved into a widely applied treatment strategy for many men with prostate cancer around the world. In this report, we show the long-term safety of following AS for men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Our study confirms AS as a safe management option for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. New diagnostic modalities may improve the acceptability of follow-up using individual risk assessments, while safely broadening the use of AS in higher-risk tumours.

Natural History of Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Managed With Watchful Waiting

Importance

It is uncertain to what extent watchful waiting (WW) in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) and a life expectancy of less than 10 years is associated with adverse consequences.

Objective

To report transitions to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), death from PCa, or death from other causes in men treated with a WW strategy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This nationwide, population-based cohort study included men with nonmetastatic PCa diagnosed since 2007 and registered in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden with WW as the primary treatment strategy and with life expectancy less than 10 years. Life expectancy was calculated based on age, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and a drug comorbidity index. Observed state transition models complemented observed data to extend follow-up to more than 20 years. Analyses were performed between 2022 and 2023.

Exposure

Nonmetastatic PCa.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Transitions to ADT, CRPC, death from PCa, and death from other causes were measured using state transition modeling.

Results

The sample included 5234 men (median [IQR] age at diagnosis, 81 [79-84] years). After 5 years, 954 men with low-risk PCa (66.2%) and 740 with high-risk PCa (36.1%) were still alive and not receiving ADT. At 10 years, the corresponding proportions were 25.5% (n = 367) and 10.4% (n = 213), respectively. After 10 years, 59 men with low-risk PCa (4.1%) and 221 with high-risk PCa (10.8%) had transitioned to CRPC. Ten years after diagnosis, 1330 deaths in the low-risk group (92.3%) and 1724 in the high-risk group (84.1%) were from causes other than PCa.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that the WW management strategy is appropriate for minimizing adverse consequences of PCa in men with a baseline life expectancy of less than 10 years.

Treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer with active surveillance in the routine care-Long-term outcomes of a prospective noninterventional study (HAROW)

Background

We report here the long-term outcomes of patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated with active surveillance (AS) in a daily routine setting.

Material and methods

HAROW (2008-2013) was a noninterventional, health service research study investigating the management of localized PCa in a community setting. A substantial proportion of the study centers were office-based urologists. A follow-up examination of all intermediate-risk patients with AS was conducted. Overall, cancer-specific, metastasis-free, and treatment-free survival rates, as well as reasons for discontinuation, were determined and discussed.

Results

Of the 2957 patients enrolled, 52 with intermediate-risk PCa were managed with AS and were available for evaluation. The median follow-up was 6.8 years (interquartile range, 3.4-8.6 years). Seven patients (13.5%) died of causes unrelated to PCa, of whom 4 were under AS or under watchful waiting. Two patients (3.8%) developed metastasis. The estimated 8-year overall, cancer-specific, metastasis-free, and treatment-free survival rates were 85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72%-96%), 100%, 93% (95% CI, 82%-100%), and 31% (95% CI, 17%-45%), respectively. On multivariable analysis, prostate-specific antigen density of ≥0.2 ng/mL2 was significantly predictive of receiving invasive treatment (hazard ratio, 3.29; p = 0.006). Reasons for discontinuation were more often due to patient's or physician's concerns (36%) than due to observed clinical progression.

Conclusions

Although survival outcome data for intermediate-risk patients managed with AS in real-life health care conditions were promising, rates of discontinuation were high, and discontinuation was often a patient's decision, even when the signs of disease progression were absent. This might be an indication of higher levels of mental burden and anxiety in this specific subgroup of patients, which should be considered when making treatment decisions. From a psychological perspective, not all intermediate-risk patients are optimal candidates for AS.

Determinants of active surveillance uptake in a diverse population-based cohort of men with low-risk prostate cancer: The Treatment Options in Prostate Cancer Study (TOPCS)

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred strategy for low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC); however, limited data on determinants of AS adoption exist, particularly among Black men.

METHODS

Black and White newly diagnosed (from January 2014 through June 2017) patients with LRPC ≤75 years of age were identified through metro-Detroit and Georgia population-based cancer registries and completed a survey evaluating factors influencing AS uptake.

RESULTS

Among 1688 study participants, 57% chose AS (51% of Black participants, 61% of White) over definitive treatment. In the unadjusted analysis, patient factors associated with initial AS uptake included older age, White race, and higher education. However, after adjusting for covariates, none of these factors was significant predictors of AS uptake. The strongest determinant of AS uptake was the AS recommendation by a urologist (adjusted prevalence ratio, 6.59, 95% CI, 4.84-8.97). Other factors associated with the decision to undergo AS included a shared patient-physician treatment decision, greater prostate cancer knowledge, and residence in metro-Detroit compared with Georgia. Conversely, men whose decision was strongly influenced by the desire to achieve "cure" or "live longer" with treatment and those who perceived their LRPC diagnosis as more serious were less likely to choose AS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this contemporary sample, the majority of patients with newly diagnosed LRPC chose AS. Although the input from their urologists was highly influential, several patient decisional and psychological factors were independently associated with AS uptake. These data shed new light on potentially modifiable factors that can help further increase AS uptake among patients with LRPC.

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.

Using active surveillance for Gleason 7 (3+4) prostate cancer: A narrative review

The interest in broadening the application of active surveillance (AS) has been increasing, encompassing patients who may not strictly adhere to the conventional criteria for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), particularly those diagnosed with small-volume Gleason grade group 2 disease. Nonetheless, accurately identifying individuals with low intermediate-risk PCa who can safely undergo AS without facing disease progression remains a challenge.This review aims to delve into the progression of this evolving trend specifically within this cohort of men, while also examining strategies aimed at minimizing irreversible disease advancement. Additionally, we address the criteria for patient selection, recommended followup schedules, and the indicators prompting intervention.

Active surveillance of low-grade prostate cancer using the SurACaP Criteria: A multi-institutional series with a median follow-up of 10years

PURPOSE

To report on the oncological outcomes of active surveillance (AS) in low-grade prostate cancer (PCa) patients using the French SurACaP protocol, with a focus on long-term outcomes.

METHODS

This multicenter study recruited patients with low-grade PCa between 2007 and 2013 in four referral centers in France. The cohort included patients meeting the SurACaP inclusion criteria, i.e., aged ≤75years, with low-grade PCa (i.e., ISUP 1), clinical stage T1c/T2a, PSA ≤10ng/mL and ≤3 positive cores and tumor length ≤3mm per core. The SurACaP protocol included a digital rectal examination every six months, PSA level measurement every three months for the first two years after inclusion and twice a year thereafter, a confirmatory biopsy in the first year after inclusion, and then follow-up biopsy every two years or if disease progression was suspected. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) was progressively included over the study period.

RESULTS

A total of 86 consecutive patients were included, with a median follow-up of 10.6 years. Only one patient developed metastases and died of PCa. The estimated rates of grade reclassification and treatment-free survival at 15 years were 53.4% and 21.2%, respectively. A negative mpMRI at baseline and a negative confirmatory biopsy were significantly associated with a lower risk of disease progression (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

AS using the French SurACaP protocol is a safe and valuable strategy for patients with low-risk PCa, with excellent oncological outcomes after more than 10 years' follow-up. Future studies are crucial to broaden the inclusion criteria and develop a personalized, risk based AS protocol with the aim of de-escalating follow-up examinations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Grade 4.

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.

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Expanding the Role of MR Imaging and the Use of PRECISE Criteria

Multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has had an expanding role in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. It can improve the accuracy of prostate biopsies, assist in patient selection, and help monitor cancer progression. The PRECISE recommendations standardize reporting of serial MR imaging scans during AS. We summarize the evidence on MR imaging-led AS and provide a clinical primer to help report using the PRECISE criteria. Some limitations to both serial imaging and the PRECISE recommendations must be considered as we move toward a more individualized risk-stratified approach to AS.

Co-designing an online treatment decision aid for men with low-risk prostate cancer: Navigate

Objectives

To develop an online treatment decision aid (OTDA) to assist patients with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) and their partners in making treatment decisions.

Patients and methods

Navigate, an OTDA for LRPC, was rigorously co-designed by patients with a confirmed diagnosis or at risk of LRPC and their partners, clinicians, researchers and website designers/developers. A theoretical model guided the development process. A mixed methods approach was used incorporating (1) evidence for essential design elements for OTDAs; (2) evidence for treatment options for LRPC; (3) an iterative co-design process involving stakeholder workshops and prototype review; and (4) expert rating using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Three co-design workshops with potential users (n = 12) and research and web-design team members (n = 10) were conducted. Results from each workshop informed OTDA modifications to the OTDA for testing in the subsequent workshop. Clinician (n = 6) and consumer (n = 9) feedback on usability and content on the penultimate version was collected.

Results

The initial workshops identified key content and design features that were incorporated into the draft OTDA, re-workshopped and incorporated into the penultimate OTDA. Expert feedback on usability and content was also incorporated into the final OTDA. The final OTDA was deemed comprehensive, clear and appropriate and met all IPDAS criteria.

Conclusion

Navigate is an interactive and acceptable OTDA for Australian men with LRPC designed by men for men using a co-design methodology. The effectiveness of Navigate in assisting patient decision-making is currently being assessed in a randomised controlled trial with patients with LRPC and their partners.

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.

Physician Perception of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite its low-risk nature, grade group 1 (GG 1) prostate cancer (PCa) remains overtreated. This suggests a disconnect between daily physician practice and the standard of care. We hypothesized that GG 1 disease is overtreated because of common misconceptions regarding its true natural history.

OBJECTIVE

To survey physicians worldwide to better understand their approach to management of GG 1 PCa.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A 17-question survey was sent to urology, radiation oncology, and pathology societies on six continents, and was posted on Twitter. Responses were collected and analyzed.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Pearson's χ2 test was used to assess correlation between physician-related variables and the perception of active surveillance (AS) for GG 1 PCa. Logistic regression was used for multivariable analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among 1303 participants, 55% were urologists, 47% had completed fellowship, and 49% practice in an academic setting. Among the clinicians, 724 (83%) routinely recommend AS for GG 1 PCa and have never/rarely regretted it, while 18 (2%) "often" regretted it. Routine AS was more common among physicians aged <40 yr, those in practice for <10 yr, and those living in North America, Europe, or Australia/New Zealand. More than one-third of the respondents practicing in nonacademic settings reported 15-yr PCa mortality in low-risk PCa of >3%. Regarding reclassification of GG 1 to a precancerous lesion, 428 (39%) felt that this is a good idea, 340 (31%) disagreed, and 323 (30%) were uncertain. Those in support were more likely to be aged <40 yr (p = 0.001), in practice for <5 yr (p = 0.005), urologists (p < 0.001), and fellows trained in urologic oncology (p < 0.001). Opposition was common among pathologists (61%). Among terminologies proposed to replace "cancer" for GG 1 are neoplasm of low malignant potential (51% approval), indolent neoplasm rarely requiring treatment (23%), and indolent lesion of epithelial origin (8%).

CONCLUSIONS

AS is more commonly recommended by physicians who are younger, are fellowship-trained in urologic oncology, practice in academic settings, and are based in North America, Europe, or Australia/New Zealand. Misconceptions regarding AS outcomes may hinder its adoption. Frequent use of AS is associated with support for changing the "cancer" nomenclature.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we found that active surveillance remains underused in the management of low-risk prostate cancer because of incorrect perceptions regarding cancer outcomes. Omitting the word "cancer" for low-risk lesions is a challenging but promising effort that is favored by many clinicians, particularly by those who advocate for active surveillance.

Increasing age predicts adverse pathology including intraductal carcinoma of the prostate and cribriform patterns in deferred radical prostatectomy after upfront active surveillance for Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer: analysis of prospective observational study cohort

BACKGROUND

In men undergoing upfront active surveillance, predictors of adverse pathology in radical prostatectomy specimens, including intraductal carcinoma of the prostate and cribriform patterns, remain unknown. Therefore, we aimed to examine whether adverse pathology in radical prostatectomy specimens could be predicted using preoperative patient characteristics.

METHODS

We re-reviewed available radical prostatectomy specimens from 1035 men prospectively enrolled in the PRIAS-JAPAN cohort between January 2010 and September 2020. We defined adverse pathology on radical prostatectomy specimens as Gleason grade group ≥3, pT stage ≥3, pN positivity or the presence of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate or cribriform patterns. We also examined the predictive factors associated with adverse pathology.

RESULTS

All men analyzed had Gleason grade group 1 specimens at active surveillance enrolment. The incidence of adverse pathologies was 48.9% (with intraductal carcinoma of the prostate or cribriform patterns, 33.6%; without them, 15.3%). The addition of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate or cribriform patterns to the definition of adverse pathology increased the incidence by 10.9%. Patients showing adverse pathology with intraductal carcinoma of the prostate or cribriform patterns had lower biochemical recurrence-free survival (log-rank P = 0.0166). Increasing age at active surveillance enrolment and before radical prostatectomy was the only predictive factor for adverse pathology (odds ratio: 1.1, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.19, P = 0.0178; odds ratio: 1.12, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.22, P = 0.0126).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing age could be a predictive factor for adverse pathology. Our findings suggest that older men could potentially derive advantages from adhering to the examination schedule in active surveillance.

Location and Types of Treatment for Prostate Cancer After the Veterans Choice Program Implementation

Importance

The Veterans Choice Program (VCP) was implemented in 2014 to help veterans gain broader access to specialized care outside of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities by providing them with purchased community care (CC).

Objective

To describe the prevalence and patterns in VCP-funded purchased CC after the implementation of the VCP among veterans with prostate cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used VHA administrative data on veterans with prostate cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. These veterans were regular VHA primary care users. Analyses were performed from March to July 2023.

Exposures

Driving distance (in miles) from residence to nearest VHA tertiary care facility. The location (VHA or purchased CC) in which treatment decisions were made was ascertained by considering 3 factors: (1) location of the diagnostic biopsy, (2) location of most of the postdiagnostic prostate-specific antigen laboratory testing, and (3) location of most of the postdiagnostic urological care encounters.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was receipt of definitive treatment and proportion of purchased CC by treatment type (radical prostatectomy [RP], radiotherapy [RT], or active surveillance) and by distance to nearest VHA tertiary care facility. Quality was evaluated based on receipt of definitive treatment for Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer (low risk/limited treatment benefit by guidelines).

Results

The cohort included 45 029 veterans (mean [SD] age, 67.1 [6.9] years) with newly diagnosed prostate cancer; of these patients, 28 866 (64.1%) underwent definitive treatment. Overall, 56.8% of patients received definitive treatment from the purchased CC setting, representing 37.5% of all RP care and 66.7% of all RT care received during the study period. Most patients who received active surveillance management (92.5%) remained within the VHA. Receipt of definitive treatment increased over the study period (from 5830 patients in 2015 to 9304 in 2018), with increased purchased CC for patients living farthest from VHA tertiary care facilities. The likelihood of receiving definitive treatment of Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer was higher in the purchased CC setting (adjusted relative risk ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.65-1.93).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found that the percentage of veterans receiving definitive treatment in VCP-funded purchased CC settings increased significantly over the study period. Increased access, however, may come at the cost of low care quality (overtreatment) for low-risk 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.

Impact of genomic testing on urologists' treatment preference in favorable risk prostate cancer: A randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

The Oncotype Dx Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) is a 17-gene relative expression assay that predicts adverse pathology at prostatectomy. We conducted a novel randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of GPS on urologist's treatment preference for favorable risk prostate cancer (PCa): active surveillance versus active treatment (i.e., prostatectomy/radiation). This is a secondary endpoint from the ENACT trial which recruited from three Chicago hospitals from 2016 to 2019.

METHODS

Ten urologists along with men with very low to favorable-intermediate risk PCa were included in the study. Participants were randomly assigned to standardized counseling with or without GPS assay. The main outcome was urologists' preference for active treatment at Visit 2 by study arm (GPS versus Control). Multivariable best-fit binary logistic regressions were constructed to identify factors independently associated with urologists' treatment preference.

RESULTS

Two hundred men (70% Black) were randomly assigned to either the Control (96) or GPS arm (104). At Visit 2, urologists' preference for prostatectomy/radiation almost doubled in the GPS arm to 29.3% (29) compared to 14.1% (13) in the Control arm (p = 0.01). Randomization to the GPS arm, intermediate NCCN risk level, and lower patient health literacy were predictors for urologists' preference for active treatment.

DISCUSSION

Limitations included sample size and number of urologists. In this study, we found that GPS testing reduced urologists' likelihood to prefer active surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate how obtaining prognostic biomarkers that predict negative outcomes before treatment decision-making might influence urologists' preference for recommending aggressive therapy in men eligible for active surveillance.

Interlaboratory Gleason grading variation affects treatment: a Dutch historic cohort study in 30 509 patients with prostate cancer

AIM

Substantial variation in Gleason grading (GG) of prostate cancer (PCa) exists between Dutch pathology laboratories. This study investigates its impact on treatment strategies.

METHODS

Pathology reports of prostate needle biopsies and clinical data of patients with PCa diagnosed between 2017 and 2019 were retrieved from the Dutch nationwide network and registry of histopathology and cytopathology and The Netherlands Cancer Registry. We investigated the impact of grading variation on treatment strategy for patients whose grade was decisive in treatment choice. First, we evaluated the effect of grading practice (low, average or high grading) on active treatment (AT) versus active surveillance in patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <10 ng/mL and cT1c/cT2a disease. Second, we assessed the association of grading practice with performance of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients with PSA 10-20 ng/mL or cT2b disease. We used multivariable logistic regression to analyse the relation between laboratories' grading practices and AT or PLND.

RESULTS

We included 30 509 patients. GG was decisive in treatment strategy for 11 925 patients (39%). AT was performed significantly less often in patients diagnosed by laboratories that graded lower than average (OR=0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.88). Conversely, patients received AT significantly more often when diagnosed in high-grading laboratories versus average-grading laboratories (OR=1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to1.43). PLND was performed significantly less often in patients diagnosed by low-grading versus average-grading laboratories (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the odds that a patient undergoes AT or PLND, depends on laboratories' grading practices in a substantial number of patients. This likely influences patient prognosis and outcome, necessitating standardisation of GG to prevent suboptimal patient outcome.

Active surveillance should be considered for select men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer must balance patient preferences, oncologic risk, and preservation of sexual, urinary and bowel function. While Active Surveillance (AS) is the recommended option for men with Grade Group 1 (Gleason Score 3 + 3 = 6) prostate cancer without other intermediate-risk features, men with Grade Group 2 (Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7) are typically recommended active treatment. For select patients, AS can be a possible initial management strategy for men with Grade Group 2. Herein, we review current urology guidelines and the urologic literature regarding recommendations and evidence for AS for this patient group.

MAIN BODY

AS benefits men with prostate cancer by maintaining their current quality of life and avoiding treatment side effects. AS protocols with close follow up always allow for an option to change course and pursue curative treatment. All the major guideline organizations now include Grade Group 2 disease with slightly differing definitions of eligibility based on risk using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, clinical stage, and other factors. Selected men with Grade Group 2 on AS have similar rates of deferred treatment and metastasis to men with Grade Group 1 on AS. There is a growing body of evidence from randomized controlled trials, large observational (prospective and retrospective) cohorts that confirm the oncologic safety of AS for these men. While some men will inevitably conclude AS at some point due to clinical reclassification with biopsy or imaging, some men may be able to stay on AS until transition to watchful waiting (WW). Magnetic resonance imaging is an important tool to confirm AS eligibility, to monitor progression and guide prostate biopsy.

CONCLUSION

AS is a viable initial management option for well-informed and select men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer, low volume of pattern 4, and no other adverse clinicopathologic findings following a well-defined monitoring protocol. In the modern era of AS, urologists have tools at their disposal to better stage patients at initial diagnosis, risk stratify patients, and gain information on the biologic potential of a patient's prostate cancer.

MRI Radiomics-Based Machine Learning Models for Ki67 Expression and Gleason Grade Group Prediction in Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

The Ki67 index and the Gleason grade group (GGG) are vital prognostic indicators of prostate cancer (PCa). This study investigated the value of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) radiomics feature-based machine learning (ML) models in predicting the Ki67 index and GGG of PCa.

METHODS

A total of 122 patients with pathologically proven PCa who had undergone preoperative MRI were retrospectively included. Radiomics features were extracted from T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. Then, recursive feature elimination (RFE) was applied to remove redundant features. ML models for predicting Ki67 expression and GGG were constructed based on bpMRI and different algorithms, including logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and K-nearest neighbor (KNN). The performances of different models were evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. In addition, a joint analysis of Ki67 expression and GGG was performed by assessing their Spearman correlation and calculating the diagnostic accuracy for both indices.

RESULTS

The ML model based on LR and ADC + T2 (LR_ADC + T2, AUC = 0.8882) performed best in predicting Ki67 expression, and ADC_wavelet-LHH_firstorder_Maximum had the highest feature weighting. The SVM_DWI + T2 (AUC = 0.9248) performed best in predicting GGG, and DWI_wavelet HLL_glcm_SumAverage had the highest feature weighting. The Ki67 and GGG exhibited a weak positive correlation (r = 0.382, p < 0.001), and LR_ADC + DWI had the highest diagnostic accuracy in predicting both (0.6230).

CONCLUSION

The proposed ML models are suitable for predicting both Ki67 expression and GGG in PCa. This algorithm could be used to identify indolent or invasive PCa with a noninvasive, repeatable, and accurate diagnostic method.

Retrospective analysis of the uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer in Zurich, Switzerland

OBJECTIVES

Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer closely monitors patients conservatively instead of the pursuit of active treatment to reduce overtreatment of insignificant disease. Since 2009, active surveillance has been recommended as the primary management option in the European Association of Urology guidelines for low-risk disease. The present study aimed to investigate the use and uptake of active surveillance over 10 years in our certified prostate cancer centre (University Hospital of Zurich) compared with those derived from the cancer registry of the canton of Zurich, Switzerland.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified all men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer at our institution and from the cancer registry of the canton of Zurich from 2009 to 2018. The primary treatment of each patient was recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the use of different treatments in our centre. The results were compared with those derived from the cancer registry.

RESULTS

A total of 3393 men with low-risk prostate cancer were included in this study (University Hospital of Zurich: n = 262; cancer registry: n = 3131). In the University Hospital of Zurich and cancer registry cohorts, 146 (55.7%) and 502 (16%) men underwent active surveillance, respectively. The proportions of local treatment [115 (43.9%) vs 2220 (71%)] and androgen deprivation therapy [0 (0%) vs 43 (1.4%)] were distinctly lower in the University Hospital of Zurich cohort than in the cancer registry cohort. The uptake of active surveillance over the years was high in the University Hospital of Zurich cohort (35.4% in 2009 and 88.2% in 2018) but only marginal in the cancer registry cohort (12.2% in 2009 and 16.2% in 2018).

CONCLUSION

Despite clear guideline recommendations, active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer is still widely underused. Our analysis showed that access to a certified interdisciplinary tumour board significantly increases the use of active surveillance.

Use of Active Surveillance vs Definitive Treatment Among Men With Low- and Favorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer in the US Between 2010 and 2018

This cross-sectional study of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database assesses temporal trends in the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting vs definitive treatment in men with low- and favorable intermediate–risk prostate cancer in the US between 2010 and 2018.

Variations in the Uptake of Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer and Its Impact on Outcomes

Background

Regional differences in active surveillance (AS) uptake for prostate cancer (PC) illustrate an inequality in treatment strategies.

Objective

To examine the association between regional differences in AS uptake and transition to radical treatment, start of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), watchful waiting, or death.

Design setting and participants

A Swedish population-based cohort study was conducted including men in the National Prostate Cancer Register in Sweden with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk PC, starting AS from January 1, 2007 and continuing till December 31, 2019.

Intervention

Regional tradition of low, intermediate, or high proportions of immediate radical treatment.

Outcomes measurements and statistical analysis

Probabilities of transition from AS to radical treatment, start of ADT, watchful waiting, or death from other causes were assessed.

Results and limitations

We included 13 679 men. The median age was 66 yr, median PSA 5.1 ng/ml, and median follow-up 5.7 yr. Men from regions with a high AS uptake had a lower probability of transition to radical treatment (36%) than men from regions with a low AS uptake (40%; absolute difference 4.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-7.2), but not a higher probability of AS failure defined as the start of ADT (absolute difference 0.4%; 95% CI -0.7 to 1.4). There were no statistically significant differences in the probability of transition to watchful waiting or death from other causes. Limitations include uncertainty in the estimation of remaining lifetime and transition to watchful waiting.

Conclusions

A regional tradition of a high AS uptake is associated with a lower probability of transition to radical treatment, but not with AS failure. A low AS uptake suggests overtreatment.

Patient summary

There are considerable regional differences in active surveillance (AS) uptake for prostate cancer. This study compared the outcomes of AS in different regions and found no association between AS uptake and failure of AS; it suggests that a low AS uptake indicates overtreatment.

Changing nationwide trends away from overtreatment among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy over the past 25 years

PURPOSE

The objective of the current study was to assess whether and how preoperative risk group distribution and pathological outcomes have changed in men treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) over the past 25 years.

METHODS

11,071 patients from a large contemporary registry-based nationwide cohort with RP as primary treatment between 1995 and 2019 were included. Preoperative risk stratification, postoperative outcomes, and 10 years other-cause mortality (OCM) were analyzed.

RESULTS

After 2005, the proportion of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) decreased from 39.6% to 25.5% in 2010 and decreased further to 15.5% in 2015, and 9.4% in 2019 (p < 0.001). The proportion of high-risk cases increased from 13.1% in 2005 to 23.1% in 2010 and 36.7% in 2015, and 40.4% in 2019 (p < 0.001). After 2005, the proportion of cases with favorable localized PCa decreased from 37.3% to 24.9% in 2010 and decreased further to 13.9% in 2015, and 1.6% in 2019 (p < 0.001). The overall 10 years OCM was 7.7%.

CONCLUSION

The current analysis documents a clear shift in utilization of RP toward higher-risk PCa in men with long life expectancy. Patients with low-risk PCa or favorable localized PCa are rarely operated. This suggests a shift in applying surgery only to patients who may really benefit from RP and the long-standing discussion of overtreatment might become outdated.

Low-risk prostate lesions: An evidence review to inform discussion on losing the "cancer" label

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) mitigates harms from overtreatment of low-risk prostate lesions. Recalibration of diagnostic thresholds to redefine which prostate lesions are considered "cancer" and/or adopting alternative diagnostic labels could increase AS uptake and continuation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and EMBASE to October 2021 for evidence on: (1) clinical outcomes of AS, (2) subclinical prostate cancer at autopsy, (3) reproducibility of histopathological diagnosis, and (4) diagnostic drift. Evidence is presented via narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

AS: one systematic review (13 studies) of men undergoing AS found that prostate cancer-specific mortality was 0%-6% at 15 years. There was eventual termination of AS and conversion to treatment in 45%-66% of men. Four additional cohort studies reported very low rates of metastasis (0%-2.1%) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (0%-0.1%) over follow-up to 15 years. Overall, AS was terminated without medical indication in 1%-9% of men. Subclinical reservoir: 1 systematic review (29 studies) estimated that the subclinical cancer prevalence was 5% at <30 years, and increased nonlinearly to 59% by >79 years. Four additional autopsy studies (mean age: 54-72 years) reported prevalences of 12%-43%. Reproducibility: 1 recent well-conducted study found high reproducibility for low-risk prostate cancer diagnosis, but this was more variable in 7 other studies. Diagnostic drift: 4 studies provided consistent evidence of diagnostic drift, with the most recent (published 2020) reporting that 66% of cases were upgraded and 3% were downgraded when using contemporary diagnostic criteria compared to original diagnoses (1985-1995).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence collated may inform discussion of diagnostic changes for low-risk prostate lesions.

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.

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

Importance

Active surveillance (AS) is endorsed by clinical guidelines as the preferred management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer, but its use in contemporary clinical practice remains incompletely defined.

Objective

To characterize trends over time and practice- and practitioner-level variation in the use of AS in a large, national disease registry.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort study included men with low-risk prostate cancer, defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than 10 ng/mL, Gleason grade group 1, and clinical stage T1c or T2a, newly diagnosed between January 1, 2014, and June 1, 2021. Patients were identified in the American Urological Association (AUA) Quality (AQUA) Registry, a large quality reporting registry including data from 1945 urology practitioners at 349 practices across 48 US states and territories, comprising more than 8.5 million unique patients. Data are collected automatically from electronic health record systems at participating practices.

Exposures

Exposures of interest included patient age, race, and PSA level, as well as urology practice and individual urology practitioners.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The outcome of interest was the use of AS as primary treatment. Treatment was determined through analysis of electronic health record structured and unstructured clinical data and determination of surveillance based on follow-up testing with at least 1 PSA level remaining greater than 1.0 ng/mL.

Results

A total of 20 809 patients in AQUA were diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer and had known primary treatment. The median age was 65 (IQR, 59-70) years; 31 (0.1%) were American Indian or Alaska Native; 148 (0.7%) were Asian or Pacific Islander; 1855 (8.9%) were Black; 8351 (40.1%) were White; 169 (0.8%) were of other race or ethnicity; and 10 255 (49.3%) were missing information on race or ethnicity. Rates of AS increased sharply and consistently from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, use of AS varied from 4.0% to 78.0% at the urology practice level and from 0% to 100% at the practitioner level. On multivariable analysis, year of diagnosis was the variable most strongly associated with AS; age, race, and PSA value at diagnosis were all also associated with odds of surveillance.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study of AS rates in the AQUA Registry found that national, community-based rates of AS have increased but remain suboptimal, and wide variation persists across practices and practitioners. Continued progress on this critical quality indicator is essential to minimize overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer and by extension to improve the benefit-to-harm ratio of national prostate cancer early detection efforts.

Socioeconomic determinants are associated with the utilization and outcomes of active surveillance or watchful waiting in favorable-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance/watchful waiting (AS/WW) is feasible and effective for favorable-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Understanding socioeconomic determinants of AS/WW may help determine the target population for social support and improve cancer-related survival.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Prostate with Watchful Waiting Database 18 Registries identified 229,428 adult men diagnosed with primary localized PCa (clinical T1-T2c, N0M0) during a median follow-up of 45 months between 2010 and 2016. Socioeconomic determinants included socioeconomic status (SES) tertiles, marital status (unmarried vs married), and residency (urban vs rural). Multivariable logistic regression and Cox models determined the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for AS/WW utilization, and adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). The extent of missing data was evaluated by multiple imputation. Sensitivity analyses were performed in multiple imputation datasets.

RESULTS

Unmarried patients were more likely to receive AS/WW in low-risk group (aOR, 1.20 [95%CI, 1.12-1.28]; p < 0.001) and favorable intermediate-risk group (aOR, 1.41 [95%CI, 1.26-1.59]; p < 0.001) than married patients. Urban patients had 0.77-fold lower likelihood of AS/WW than rural patients in low-risk group (95% CI, 0.68-0.87; p < 0.001), but not in favorable intermediate-risk groups. Among patients undertaking AS/WW, a significantly worse OS was observed among unmarried patients comparing to married group (aHR, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.50-2.60]; p < 0.001), and patients with high SES had better CSS than low group (aHR, 0.08 [95%CI, 0.01-0.69]; p = 0.02). No significant survival difference was found between urban and rural patients.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Unmarried or urban patients had significantly higher rates of AS/WW. The utilization and efficacy of conservative management were affected by socioeconomic factors, which might serve as a barrier of treatment decision-making and targeted a population in need of social support.

Modern Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review

The use of PSA screening has led to downstaging and downgrading of prostate cancer at diagnosis, increasing detection of indolent disease. Active surveillance aims to reduce over-treatment by delaying or avoiding radical treatment and its associated morbidity. However, there is not a consensus on the selection criteria and monitoring schedules that should be used. This article aims to summarize the evidence supporting the safety of active surveillance, the current selection criteria recommended and in use, the incidence of active surveillance, barriers existing to its uptake and future developments in patient selection.

Active surveillance in younger patients with prostate cancer: clinical characteristics including longitudinal patient-reported outcomes

OBJECTIVE

this study aimed to evaluate the active surveillance continuation period, treatment intervention rate and health-related quality of life in younger patients.

METHODS

we prospectively conducted a health-related quality of life survey of patients enrolled in the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance-JAPAN study at Kagawa University between January 2010 and December 2020. Health-related quality of life was assessed by mail using a validated Japanese version of the Short-Form 8 Health Survey and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index at active surveillance enrolment and annually thereafter until discontinuation of active surveillance. We divided the patients into two groups, younger (aged <65 years) and older (aged ≥65 years), and compared the two groups.

RESULTS

of the 84 patients, 22 were in the younger group. The active surveillance continuation period was shorter in the younger group than in the older group. The 3-year treatment intervention rate was higher in the younger group than in the older group. The majority of the reasons for definitive treatment were related to the protocol, which was similar in both groups (80 versus 76%). The sexual summary scores at active surveillance enrolment were higher in the younger group than in the older group. During active surveillance, the younger group and the older group showed no deterioration in all health-related quality of life scores compared with the scores at the enrolment of active surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

patient-reported health-related quality of life survey indicated that the health-related quality of life of younger Japanese patients was maintained over time during active surveillance, similar to that of older patients.

The Influence of Practice Structure on Urologists' Treatment of Men With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Vertical and horizontal integration among health care providers has transformed the practice arrangements under which many physicians work.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the influence of type of practice structure, and by implication the financial incentives associated with each structure, on treatment received among men newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We compiled a unique database from cancer registry records from 4 large states, Medicare enrollment and claims for the years 2005-2014 and SK & A physician surveys corroborated by extensive internet searches. We estimated a multinomial logit model to examine the influence of urologist practice structure on type of initial treatment received.

RESULTS

The probability of being monitored with active surveillance was 7.4% and 4.2% points higher for men treated by health system and nonhealth system employed urologists ( P <0.01), respectively, in comparison to men treated by single specialty urology practices. Among multispecialty practices, the rate of active surveillance use was 3% points higher compared with single specialty urology practices( P <0.01). Use of intensity modulated radiation therapy among urologists with ownership in intensity modulated radiation therapy was 17.4% points higher compared with urologists working in small single specialty practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician practice structure attributes are significantly associated with type of treatment received but few studies control for such factors. Our findings-coupled with the observation that urologist practice structure shifted substantially over this time period due to mergers of small urology groups-provide one explanation for the limited uptake of active surveillance among men with low-risk disease in the US.

Long-term Outcomes Among Men Undergoing Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in Sweden

IMPORTANCE

The long-term outcomes among men with prostate cancer (PC) whose disease is managed with active surveillance (AS) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a simulation model with a 30-year follow-up for men with PC managed with AS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cohort study, a state transition model was created using data from Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) on 23 655 men diagnosed with PC and managed with deferred treatment to estimate treatment trajectories. A simulation was performed with 100 000 men in each combination of age at diagnosis, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and PC risk with a follow-up of 30 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Death from PC and death from other causes were estimated, and the proportion of time without active PC treatment was assessed until date of death or age 85 years.

RESULTS

This study included 23 655 men from PCBaSe with a median age at diagnosis of 69 years (IQR, 64-74 years). Of these, 16 177 men underwent active surveillance for PC and 7478 underwent watchful waiting. The proportion of men who were diagnosed at age 55 years and died of PC before age 85 years was 9% for very low-risk PC, 13% for low-risk PC, and 15% for intermediate-risk PC. Among men with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0 who were diagnosed at age 70 years, the corresponding percentages were 3%, 6%, and 7%, respectively. The mean proportion of remaining life-years without active PC treatment for men diagnosed at age 55 years was 12 of 25 years (48%) for very low-risk PC, 9 of 25 years (36%) for low-risk PC, and 7 of 25 (29%) for intermediate-risk PC. For men aged 70 years, the corresponding numbers were 10 of 13 years (77%), 9 of 13 years (66%), and 8 of 13 years (60%), respectively. Men with intermediate-risk PC who were younger than 60 years at diagnosis had a high risk of PC death (12%-15%) and fewer remaining life-years without active PC treatment (29%-33%). In contrast, men with low-risk PC who were older than 65 years at diagnosis had a lower risk of PC death (3%-5%) and more remaining life-years without active PC treatment (62%-77%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this Swedish cohort study suggest that active surveillance may be a safe strategy for disease management among men with PC who were older than 65 years at diagnosis.

Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Current Data

Simple Summary

AS is an option for the initial management of selected patients with intermediate-risk PC. The proper way to predict which men will have an aggressive clinical course or indolent PC who would benefit from AS has not been unveiled. Genetics and MRI can help in the decision-making, but it remains unclear which men would benefit from which tests. In addition, there are several differences between AS protocols in inclusion criteria, monitoring follow-up, and triggers for active treatment. Large series and a few RCTs are under investigation, and more research is needed to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with intermediate-risk PC. This study summarizes the current data on patients with intermediate-risk PC under AS, recent findings, and discusses future directions.

Abstract

Active surveillance (AS) is a monitoring strategy to avoid or defer curative treatment, minimizing the side effects of radiotherapy and prostatectomy without compromising survival. AS in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC) has increasingly become used. There is heterogeneity in intermediate-risk PC patients. Some of them have an aggressive clinical course and require active treatment, while others have indolent disease and may benefit from AS. However, intermediate-risk patients have an increased risk of metastasis, and the proper way to select the best candidates for AS is unknown. In addition, there are several differences between AS protocols in inclusion criteria, monitoring follow-up, and triggers for active treatment. A few large series and randomized trials are under investigation. Therefore, more research is needed to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with intermediate-risk disease. This study summarizes the current data on patients with intermediate-risk PC under AS, recent findings, and discusses future directions.

Análise do Tempo para Início do Tratamento Oncológico no Brasil: Fatores Demográficos e Relacionados à Neoplasia

Introdução: E reservado a todo brasileiro com câncer, pela Lei dos 60 Dias, o direito de começar o tratamento em até dois meses. Todavia, estudos anteriores apontam a dificuldade dos pacientes em fazer valer essa normativa ao esbarrarem em problemáticas macroestruturais dos sistemas de saúde. Objetivo: Avaliar a influência de fatores demográficos e relacionados a neoplasia sobre o tempo para início do tratamento oncológico no Brasil. Método: Estudo seccional, desenvolvido com dados oriundos do PAINEL-Oncologia, uma base publica nacional, alimentada por diversas fontes de informação do Sistema Único de Saúde. Como variáveis de interesse, elegeram-se: a) tempo de tratamento; b) sexo; c) idade; d) diagnostico; e) estadiamento; f) modalidade terapêutica. Então, foi analisado o tempo transcorrido entre o diagnóstico e o início do tratamento oncológico. Resultados: Percebeu-se aumento exponencial, ao longo dos anos, da proporção de casos tratados oportunamente, isto e, em até 60 dias, como regulamenta a Lei. Entretanto, ainda e considerável a prevalência de atrasos no início do tratamento, sobretudo entre indivíduos idosos, do sexo masculino, com canceres em estádios menos avançados e que precisaram de radioterapia como primeira modalidade terapêutica. Além disso, o tempo de espera foi especialmente maior para os canceres de órgãos genitais masculinos, de cabeça e pescoço e de mama. Conclusão: Alguns fatores demográficos e relacionados a neoplasia estão envolvidos no atraso do início da terapia oncológica.

5-Alpha Reductase Inhibitor Use and Prostate Cancer Prevention: A Victim of the Times?

Vaselkiv and colleagues present strong evidence of the long-term safety of 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5-ARI) use. They demonstrated no association with developing advanced prostate cancer, nor dying of prostate cancer. This commentary covers the strengths and weaknesses of the article, and highlights the long and vacillating journey 5-ARIs and prostate cancer prevention have traveled. As 5-ARIs preferentially prevent low-grade prostate cancer, a fact confirmed in the study by Vaselkiv and colleagues, this commentary highlights how 5-ARI chemoprevention may be irrelevant now. With increasing use of active surveillance for low-grade prostate cancers found, and prebiopsy MRI and biomarkers shifting focus to only find those clinically significant cancers, it maybe that 5-ARIs are a victim of the times in their chemoprevention role. See related article by Vaselkiv et al., p. 1460.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of active surveillance in prostate cancer among urologists: a real-life survey from Brazil

Background

Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred treatment for patients with very low-and low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), but it is underperformed worldwide. This study aimed to report knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of AS for PCa among urologists in Brazil.

Methods

This cross-sectional study used a questionnaire with 50 questions divided into participant characteristics, knowledge regarding inclusion criteria for AS, follow-up, intervention triggers, acceptance, and practice for an index patient. Data analysis comprises absolute and relative frequencies of the variables. After that, a logistic regression was performed in order to verify possible patterns of answers provided by the respondents in the index patient questionnaire.

Results

Questionnaires were sent through the SurveyMonkey® platform to 5,015 urologists using email addresses and through social media. A total of 600 (12%) questionnaires returned and 413 (8.2%) were completed and included in the analysis. Only 53% of urologists adopt AS for low- and very-low-risk PCa. Inclusion criteria were patients with age > 50 years (32.2%), prostate specific antigen (PSA) < 10 ng/mL (87.2%), T1 clinical stage (80.4%), Biopsy Gleason score ≤ 6, positive cores ≤ 2 (44.3%), positive core involvement < 50% (45.3%), and magnetic resonance imaging findings (38.7%). The PSA doubling time was still used by 60.3%. Confirmatory biopsy (55.9%), PSA level (36.6%), and digital rectal examination (34.4%) were considered by most urologists for follow-ups. Patient preference (85.7%), upgrade of Gleason score (73.4%), and increased number of positive cores (66.8%) were associated with conversion to definitive treatment. In an index patient, non-acceptance and active treatment request were the most cited reasons for not performing AS.

Conclusion

There is significant variability in the KAP of AS in Brazil, which indicates the need to reinforce AS, its inclusion and follow-up criteria, and the benefits for physicians and the general population.

Trial registration: Not applicable.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12894-022-01036-1.

Impact of adherence to criteria on oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy in patients opting for active surveillance: data from the PRIAS-JAPAN study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate whether oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy differ depending on adherence to the criteria in patients who opt for active surveillance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 1035 patients enrolled in a prospective cohort of the PRIAS-JAPAN study. After applying the exclusion criteria, 136 of 162 patients were analyzed. Triggers for radical prostatectomy due to pathological reclassification on repeat biopsy were defined as on-criteria. Off-criteria triggers were defined as those other than on-criteria triggers. Unfavorable pathology on radical prostatectomy was defined as pathological ≥T3, ≥GS 4 + 3 and pathological N positivity. We compared the pathological findings on radical prostatectomy and prostate-specific antigen recurrence-free survival between the two groups. The off-criteria group included 35 patients (25.7%), half of whom received radical prostatectomy within 35 months.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in median prostate-specific antigen before radical prostatectomy between the on-criteria and off-criteria groups (6.1 vs. 8.3 ng/ml, P = 0.007). The percentage of unfavorable pathologies on radical prostatectomy was lower in the off-criteria group than that in the on-criteria group (40.6 vs. 31.4%); however, the differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.421). No significant difference in prostate-specific antigen recurrence-free survival was observed between the groups during the postoperative follow-up period (median: 36 months) (log-rank P = 0.828).

CONCLUSIONS

Half of the off-criteria patients underwent radical prostatectomy within 3 years of beginning active surveillance, and their pathological findings were not worse than those of the on-criteria patients.

Five-year follow-up study of a population-based prospective cohort of men with low-risk prostate cancer: the treatment options in prostate cancer study (TOPCS): study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) to reduce overtreatment and to maintain patients' quality of life (QOL). However, whether African American (AA) men can safely undergo AS is controversial due to concerns of more aggressive disease and lack of empirical data on the safety and effectiveness of AS in this population. Withholding of AS may lead to a lost opportunity for improving survivorship in AA men. In this study, peer-reviewed and funded by the US Department of Defense, we will assess whether AS is an equally effective and safe management option for AA as it is for White men with LRPC.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The project extends follow-up of a large contemporary population-based cohort of LRPC patients (n=1688) with a high proportion of AA men (~20%) and well-characterised baseline and 2-year follow-up data. The objectives are to (1) determine any racial differences in AS adherence, switch rate from AS to curative treatment and time to treatment over 5 years after diagnosis, (2) compare QOL among AS group and curative treatment group over time, overall and by race and (3) evaluate whether reasons for switching from AS to curative treatment differ by race. Validation of survey responses related to AS follow-up procedures is being conducted through medical record review. We expect to obtain 5-year survey from ~900 (~20% AA) men by the end of this study to have sufficient power. Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques will be used to examine racial differences in AS adherence, effectiveness and QOL.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The parent and current studies were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Wayne State University and Emory University. Since it is an observational study, ethical or safety risks are low. We will disseminate our findings to relevant conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Genetic Factors Associated with Prostate Cancer Conversion from Active Surveillance to Treatment

Men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PC) are increasingly electing active surveillance (AS) as their initial management strategy. While this may reduce the side effects of treatment for prostate cancer, many men on AS eventually convert to active treatment. PC is one of the most heritable cancers, and genetic factors that predispose to aggressive tumors may help distinguish men who are more likely to discontinue AS. To investigate this, we undertook a multi-institutional genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 5,222 PC patients and 1,139 other patients from replication cohorts, all of whom initially elected AS and were followed over time for the potential outcome of conversion from AS to active treatment. In the GWAS we detected 18 variants associated with conversion, 15 of which were not previously associated with PC risk. With a transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS), we found two genes associated with conversion (MAST3, p = 6.9×10-7 and GAB2, p = 2.0×10-6). Moreover, increasing values of a previously validated 269-variant genetic risk score (GRS) for PC was positively associated with conversion (e.g., comparing the highest to the two middle deciles gave a hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]= 0.94-1.36); whereas, decreasing values of a 36-variant GRS for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were positively associated with conversion (e.g., comparing the lowest to the two middle deciles gave a HR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.50). These results suggest that germline genetics may help inform and individualize the decision of AS-or the intensity of monitoring on AS-versus treatment for the initial management of patients with low-risk PC.

Is Grade Group 1 (Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6) adenocarcinoma of the prostate really cancer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Whether Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer is really cancer remains controversial.

RECENT FINDINGS

Favoring renaming GG1 with a noncancerous diagnosis are: fear of the term cancer, which will lead to overtreatment of GG1; and indolence of GG1. Favor designating GG1 as cancer are: morphologically, GG1 may be indistinguishable from GG2 to GG5 and GG1 is invasive (lacks basal cells), can show perineural invasion and extraprostatic extension; molecularly, GG1 has many of the hallmarks of prostate cancer; calling GG1 noncancer would lead to inconsistencies and confusion in reporting; sampling error with GG1 on biopsy can miss higher grade cancer; removing the label of cancer in men with GG1 on biopsy may make it challenging to insure follow-up during active surveillance; the prognosis of treated GG1 may not be the same if GG1 called noncancer and not treated; with Grade Group terminology, GG1 is more intuitive to patients as lowest grade cancer; and patients are increasingly adopting active surveillance, recognizing that not all prostate cancers are the same and GG1 can be followed carefully and safely on active surveillance.

SUMMARY

There is strong support for retaining the carcinoma designation for GG1.

Active surveillance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer with PSA 10-20 ng/mL: pathological outcome analysis of a population-level database

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) is generally recognized as the preferred option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Current guidelines use prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 10-20 ng/mL or low-volume biopsy Gleason grade group (GG) 2 as features that, in part, define the favorable intermediate-risk disease and suggest that AS may be considered for some men in this risk category.

METHODS

We identified 26,548 men initially managed with AS aged <80 years, with clinically localized prostate cancer (cT1-2cN0M0), PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, biopsy GG ≤ 2 with percent positive cores ≤33% and who converted to treatment with radical prostatectomy from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results prostate with the watchful waiting database. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of adverse pathology at RP according to PSA level (<10 vs 10-20 ng/mL) and GG (1 vs 2).

RESULTS

Of 1731 men with GG 1 disease and PSA 10-20 ng/mL, 382 (22.1%) harbored adverse pathology compared to 2340 (28%) of 8,367 men with GG 2 and a PSA < 10 ng/mL who had adverse pathology at RP. On multivariable analysis, the odds of harboring adverse pathology with a PSA 10-20 ng/mL (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71-2.05, p < 0.001) was less than that of GG 2 (OR 2.56, 95%CI 2.40-2.73, p < 0.001) after adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support extending AS criteria more permissively to carefully selected men with PSA 10-20 ng/mL and GG 1 disease.

What interventions affect the psychosocial burden experienced by prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance? A scoping review

PURPOSE

Living with untreated prostate cancer (PCa) may cause anxiety and uncertainty in men undergoing active surveillance (AS). Developing a psychosocial support program for such patients might promote psychosocial well-being and patient engagement. This review aims to identify interventions with the potential to influence the psychosocial burden of prostate cancer patients undergoing AS.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. A systematic search was conducted in six databases and included publications dating from 2009. All available and eligible evidence was included in this review.

RESULTS

After screening 2824 articles, 12 studies were included in the review: nine quantitative, one qualitative, and two mixed method papers. The relative strength of these studies was limited and the quality of most was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The described interventions can be categorized into three major themes: information and education, coping and (psycho)social support, and lifestyle. Psychosocial support for men undergoing AS should entail involvement of family and spouse during the decision-making process, tailored information about PCa treatments, risks, benefits, protocols, lifestyle adjustments, and complementary and alternative medicine. Assessment and promotion of effective coping and self-management strategies are recommended. Healthcare providers should actively promote physical activity and nutritional improvements. Physical activity programs may also be helpful in facilitating peer support, which is especially important for men with limited social support. Future research should investigate combining interventions to increase efficacy and optimize supportive care during AS.

Trends in the use of active surveillance and treatments in Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The treatment for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer has changed over time given the increased attention to the harms associated with over-diagnosis and the development of protocols for active surveillance.

METHODS

We examined trends in the treatment of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2015, using the most recently available data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)-Medicare. Patients were stratified by Gleason score, age, and race groups.

RESULTS

The use of active surveillance increased from 22% in 2004-2005 to 50% in 2014-2015 for patients with a Gleason score of 6 or below and increased from 9% in 2004-2005 to 13% in 2014-2015 for patients with a Gleason score of 7 or above. Patients with a Gleason score of 7 or above had increased use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and prostatectomy, especially among patients aged 75 years and older. Among patients with a Gleason score of 6 or below non-Hispanic black men were less likely to undergo active surveillance than non-Hispanic white men.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a large increase in the use of active surveillance among men with a Gleason score of 6 or below. However, non-Hispanic black men with a Gleason score of 6 or below are less likely to receive active surveillance.

Temporal changes in cause-specific death in men with localised prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: a population-based, nationwide study

Background and Objective

Changes in diagnostic work‐up, histopathological assessment, and treatment of men with prostate cancer during the last 20 years have affected the prognosis. The objective was to investigate the risk of prostate cancer death in men with clinically localised prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in Sweden in 2000–2010.

Methods

Population‐based, nationwide, study on men with clinically localised prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in the period 2000–2010. Cox regression analyses were used to assess differences in risk of prostate cancer death according to calendar period for diagnosis and stratified on risk category.

Results

The study included 19 330 men with a median follow‐up of 12.4 years. Men diagnosed in 2007–2008 and 2009–2010 had a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer death compared to men diagnosed in 2000–2002. The reduced risk of prostate cancer death was restricted to men with intermediate‐risk prostate cancer with no differences observed in men with low‐ or high‐risk prostate cancer.

Conclusion

During the study period, the risk of prostate cancer death decreased in the total population of men with localised prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. The decrease was restricted to men with intermediate‐risk prostate cancer.