Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer

Prospective evaluation of fexapotide triflutate injection treatment of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: 4-year results

Purpose

This study was undertaken to determine the safety and efficacy of fexapotide triflutate (FT) 2.5 mg and 15 mg for the treatment of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer.

Methods

Prospective randomized transrectal intraprostatic single injection FT 2.5 mg (n = 49), FT 15 mg (n = 48) and control active surveillance (AS) (n = 49) groups were compared in 146 patients at 28 U.S. sites, with elective AS crossover (n = 18) to FT after first follow-up biopsy at 45 days. Patients were followed for 5 years including biopsies (baseline, 45 days, and 18, 36, and 54 months thereafter), and urological evaluations with PSA every 6 months. Patients with Gleason grade increase or who elected surgical or radiotherapeutic intervention exited the study and were cumulatively included in the data analysis. Percentage of normal biopsies in baseline focus quadrant, tumor grades, and volumes; and outcomes including Gleason grade in entire prostate as well as treated prostate lobe, interventions associated with Gleason grade increase and total incidence of interventions were assessed.

Results

Significantly improved long-term clinical outcomes were found after 4-year follow-up, with percentages of patients progressing to interventions with and without Gleason grade increase significantly reduced by FT single treatment. Results in the FT 15-mg group were superior to the FT 2.5-mg dose group. There were no drug-related serious adverse events (SAEs).

Conclusions

FT showed statistically significant long-term efficacy in the treatment of Grade Group 1 patients regarding clinical and pathological progression. FT 15 mg showed superior results to FT 2.5 mg. There were no drug-related SAEs; FT injection was well tolerated.

Prediction of Postprostatectomy Biochemical Recurrence Using Quantitative Ultrasound Shear Wave Elastography Imaging

Objectives: To determine the prognostic significance of tissue stiffness measurement using transrectal ultrasound shear wave elastography in predicting biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Patients and Methods: Eligible male patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy between November 2013 and August 2017 were retrospectively selected. Information of potential biochemical recurrence predictors, including imaging (ultrasound shear wave elastography and magnetic resonance imaging), clinicopathological characteristics, and preoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels were obtained. Recurrence-free survival (Kaplan–Meier curve) and a multivariate model were constructed using Cox regression analysis to evaluate the impact of shear wave elastography as a prognostic marker for biochemical recurrence.

Results: Patients experienced biochemical recurrence in an average of 26.3 ± 16.3 months during their follow-up. A cutoff of 144.85 kPa for tissue stiffness measurement was estimated for recurrence status at follow-up with a sensitivity of 74.4% and a specificity of 61.7%, respectively (p < 0.05). In univariate analysis, shear wave elastography performed well in all preoperative factors compared to biopsy Gleason Score, PSA and magnetic resonance imaging; in multivariate analysis with postoperative pathological factors, shear wave elastography was statistically significant in predicting postoperative biochemical recurrence, which improved the C-index of predictive nomogram significantly (0.74 vs. 0.70, p < 0.05).

Conclusions: The study revealed that quantitative ultrasound shear wave elastography-measured tissue stiffness was a significant imaging marker that enhanced the predictive ability with other clinical and histopathological factors in prognosticating postoperative biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Predictors of adverse pathologic features after radical prostatectomy in low-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening more frequently detects early stage prostate cancer (PC). However, adverse pathologic features (APFs) after radical prostatectomy (RP) in low-risk PC occur. Previous related studies had utilized outdated staging criteria or small sample cohorts. In this study, we analyzed predictors of APFs after RP in low-risk PC using classification under the current criteria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 546 low-risk PC patients who had undergone RP. Low-risk PC was defined as PC with clinical T1-T2a, Gleason score ≤ 6, and PSA levels < 10 ng/mL. Clinical and pathological parameters were analyzed to predict APFs. APFs were defined as extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), or positive surgical margins (PSM). We analyzed our data using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses, as well as receiver operator characteristics to predict APFs.

RESULTS

Among 546 patients, ECE, SVI, and PSM were present in 199 (36.4%), 8 (1.5%), and 179 cases (32.8%), respectively. PSM had a significant correlation with preoperative high PSA levels and number of positive cores obtained. ECE/SVI was also significantly correlated with PSA levels and number of positive cores. As a result, presence of APFs after RP was associated with high PSA levels and large number of positive cores. PSA > 4.5 ng/mL and number of positive cores > 2 in low-risk PC were significantly associated with APFs, and suggested as cut-off values for predicting APFs.

CONCLUSIONS

PSA > 4.5 ng/mL and number of positive cores > 2 in low-risk PC were associated with presence of APFs and patients with such records should be considered carefully to provide active surveillance.

Utility of early transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy for risk stratification in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accuracy and utility of routine multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy (TPB) after enrolment in active surveillance (AS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From April 2012 to December 2016 consecutive men from our single institution, diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy, were offered further staging with early mpMRI and TPB within 12 months of diagnosis. Data were collected prospectively. Eligibility criteria comprised: age ≤77 years; Gleason score ≤3 + 4; clinical stage T1-T2; PSA ≤15 ng/mL; and <50% positive biopsy cores.

RESULTS

A total of 208 men were enrolled, including 196 with Gleason score 3 + 3 and 12 with Gleason score 3 + 4 disease. The median (range) number of TPB cores was 50 (17-161), with a mean TPB core density of 1.2 cores/cm³ prostate volume. A total of 83 men (39.9%) underwent histopathological upgrading after TPB, including 76 men (38.8%) with Gleason score 3 + 3 disease and seven men (58.3%) with Gleason score 3 + 4 disease. Of these, 26 (31.3%) were found to harbour primary pattern Gleason grade ≥4 disease. In all, 24 (28.9%) upgraded cases had Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score 1 or 2 lesions on mpMRI, including five men with Gleason score ≥4 + 3 disease. Of these, 14 (58.3%) had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density of ≥0.15, including four out of the five men with Gleason ≥4 + 3 disease. Overall there was a change in prostate cancer management in 77 men (37.0%) after TPB.

CONCLUSIONS

Early TPB during AS is associated with significant upgrading and a change in treatment plan in over a third of men. If TPB was omitted in men with a PI-RADS score <3 and a PSA density <0.15, 12% of those harbouring more significant disease would have been misclassified.

Physicians' Perceptions of Factors Influencing the Treatment Decision-making Process for Men With Low-risk Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess physicians' attitudes regarding multiple factors that may influence recommendations for active surveillance (AS) vs active treatment (AT) given the central role physicians play in the treatment decision-making process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews to assess factors that physicians consider important when recommending AS vs AT, as well as physicians' perceptions of what their patients consider important in the decision. Participants included urologists (N = 11), radiation oncologists (N = 12), and primary care physicians (N = 10) from both integrated and fee-for-service healthcare settings.

RESULTS

Across the specialties, quantitative data indicated that most physicians reported that their recommendations for AS were influenced by patients' older age, willingness and ability to follow a surveillance protocol, anxiety, comorbidities, life expectancy, and treatment preferences. Qualitative findings highlighted physicians' concerns about malpractice lawsuits, given the possibility of disease progression. Additionally, most physicians noted the role of the healthcare setting, suggesting that financial incentives may be associated with AT recommendations in fee-for-service settings. Finally, most physicians reported spouse or family opposition to AS due to their own anxiety or lack of understanding of AS.

CONCLUSION

We found that patient and physician preferences, healthcare setting, and family or spouse factors influence physicians' treatment recommendations for men with low-risk PCa. These were consistent themes across physician subspecialties in both an Health Maintenance Organization and in fee-for-service settings.

An assessment of Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria for active surveillance of clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance is a strategy to delay or prevent treatment of indolent prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria were developed to select patients for prostate cancer active surveillance. The objective of this study was to compare pathological findings from PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

A D'Amico low-risk cohort of 1512 radical prostatectomy patients treated at The Ottawa Hospital or Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre between January 1995 and December 2007 was reviewed. Pathological outcomes (pT3 tumours, Gleason sum ≥7, lymph node metastases, or a composite) and clinical outcomes (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] recurrence, secondary cancer treatments, and death) were compared between PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible cohorts.

RESULTS

The PRIAS-eligible cohort (n=945) was less likely to have Gleason score ≥7 (odds ratio [OR] 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.75), pT3 (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.31-0.55), nodal metastases (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.10-1.31), or any adverse feature (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45-0.69) compared to the PRIAS-ineligible cohort. The probability of any adverse pathology in the PRIAS-eligible cohort was 41% vs. 56% in the PRIAS-ineligible cohort. At median follow-up of 3.7 years, 72 (4.8%) patients had a PSA recurrence, 24 (1.6%) received pelvic radiation, and 13 (0.9%) received androgen deprivation. No difference was detected for recurrence-free and overall survival between groups (recurrence hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; 95% CI 0.46-1.09 and survival HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.36-1.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-risk prostate cancer patients who met PRIAS eligibility criteria are less likely to have higher-risk cancer compared to those who did not meet at least one of these criteria.

Screening and Treating Prostate Cancer in the Older Patient: Decision Making Across the Clinical Spectrum

Treatment of the growing geriatric patient population is increasingly being recognized as a necessary priority of the oncology community. As the most common cancer among men in developed countries, prostate cancer afflicts a sizable portion of elderly men. Caring for this population requires knowledge of aspects of disease presentation, screening strategies, treatment approaches, and survivorship care considerations unique to the geriatric population. In this article, we review characteristics of prostate cancer screening and treatment decision making for localized disease in elderly men, including a discussion of the biology of disease in the elderly population. We also review best practices for providing treatment for localized and recurrent disease in an elderly population, including engaging in a basic geriatric assessment to determine fitness for treatment, eliciting information about patient preferences and support systems, and balancing treatment decisions in the context of these factors using the resources of a multidisciplinary care team. We then consider complications of prostate cancer survivorship related to systemic treatment in the elderly population of men with this disease. Finally, we emphasize the importance of engaging patients in treatment decision making across the spectrum of disease to personalize treatment plans and provide optimal care.

Feasibility for active surveillance in biopsy Gleason 3 + 4 prostate cancer: an Australian radical prostatectomy cohort

OBJECTIVE

To examine the feasibility of active surveillance for low volume Gleason sum (GS) 3 + 4 disease compared to GS 3 + 3 disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of 929 patients, with biopsy proven GS 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 PCa, undergoing upfront radical prostatectomy (RP) was performed. Suitability for AS was adapted from protocols by Royal Marsden Hospital, University of Toronto, and PRIAS by allowing Gleason 3 + 4 disease. The outcomes assessed were adverse pathology at RP (upgrading ≥GS 4 + 3 and/or upstaging ≥pT3) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) after RP.

RESULTS

Adverse pathology at RP was compared between GS 3 + 3 vs 3 + 4 groups. When selecting patients using Royal Marsden (n = 714) or University of Toronto (n = 699) protocols, there was statistically significantly more adverse pathology at RP in GS 3 + 4 group (21% vs 31%, P = 0.0028 and 19% vs 33%, P=<0.001 respectively). Using the more stringent PRIAS protocol (n = 198), there was no statistical significant difference in groups. There was no difference in BCR survival between biopsy GS 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 groups, regardless of which AS protocol assessed. Pre-operative PSA and clinical staging were the predictors for BCR.

CONCLUSION

Presence of Gleason 3 + 4 at biopsy, when compared to 3 + 3, increases the risk of adverse pathology being present at radical prostatectomy for less stringent selection criteria. When considering AS, a stricter protocol such as PRIAS, limiting PSA density and number of positive cores to ≤2, appears to decrease the risk of adverse pathology. No differences in BCR were seen between biopsy 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 disease, regardless of AS selection criteria.

Anterior prostate biopsy at initial and repeat evaluation: is it useful to detect significant prostate cancer?

Purpose:

Detection rate for anterior prostate cancer (PCa) in men who underwent initial and repeat biopsy has been prospectively evaluated.

Materials and Methods:

From January 2013 to March 2014, 400 patients all of Caucasian origin (median age 63.5 years) underwent initial (285 cases) and repeat (115 cases) prostate biopsy; all the men had negative digital rectal examination and the indications to biopsy were: PSA values > 10 ng/mL, PSA between 4.1-10 or 2.6-4 ng/mL with free/total PSA≤25% and ≤20%, respectively. A median of 22 (initial biopsy) and 31 cores (repeat biopsy) were transperineally performed including 4 cores of the anterior zone (AZ) and 4 cores of the AZ plus 2 cores of the transition zone (TZ), respectively.

Results:

Median PSA was 7.9 ng/mL; overall, a PCa was found in 180 (45%) patients: in 135 (47.4%) and 45 (36%) of the men who underwent initial and repeat biopsy, respectively. An exclusive PCa of the anterior zone was found in the 8.9 (initial biopsy) vs 13.3% (repeat biopsy) of the men: a single microfocus of cancer was found in the 61.2% of the cases; moreover, in 7 out 18 AZ PCa the biopsy histology was predictive of significant cancer in 2 (28.5%) and 5 (71.5%) men who underwent initial and repeat biopsy, respectively.

Conclusions:

However AZ biopsies increased detection rate for PCa (10% of the cases), the majority of AZ PCa with histological findings predictive of clinically significant cancer were found at repeat biopsy (about 70% of the cases).

Nonvisible tumors on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging does not predict low-risk prostate cancer

Purpose

To determine whether multiparametric MRI could help predict the diagnosis of low-risk prostate cancer (PCA).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive 623 patients with PCA who underwent multiparametric MRI before radical prostatectomy(RP). High-resolution T1- and T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic precontrast and postcontrast image sequences were obtained for each patient. Of the 623 patients, 177(28.4%) exhibited non visible tumors on MRI of clinical stage T1c. The imaging results were compared with the pathological findings with respect to both stage and Gleason scores (GS).

Results

Of the 177 prostatectomy patients with non visible tumors on MRI, pathological findings resulted in the upgrading of 49(27.7%) patients to a sum of GS 7 or more. 101(57.1%) patients exhibited tumor volumes greater than 0.5cc. The biochemical recurrence rate was significantly higher in the pathological upgraded group compared with the nonupgraded group after a mean follow-up time of 29 months. In the multiple logistic analysis, non visible tumor on MRI was not a significant predictor of low-risk PCA.

Conclusions

Even though cancer foci were not visualized by postbiopsy MRI, the pathological tumor volumes and extent of GS upgrading were relatively high. Therefore, nonvisible tumors by multiparametric MRI do not appear to be predictive of low-risk PCA.

Factors Influencing Selection of Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine how well demographic and clinical factors predict the initiation of Active Surveillance (AS).

METHODS

AS has been suggested as a way to reduce overtreatment of men who have prostate cancer; however, factors associated with the decision to choose AS are poorly quantified. Using the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry, we identified 2977 men with prostate cancer who made treatment decisions from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2013. We used chi-square and Wilcoxon tests to examine the association between factors and initiation of AS. Logistic regression models were fit for D'Amico risk categories. Measures of model discrimination and calibration were estimated, including area under the curve (AUC) and Brier score (BS).

RESULTS

Patient age, Gleason score, clinical T-stage, urology practice, and tumor volume (greatest percent of a core involved with cancer and proportion of positive cores) were associated with the decision to choose AS in the intermediate-risk cohort (AUC = 0.875, BS = 0.07) and the complete cohort (AUC = 0.89, BS = 0.10). Patient age, urology practice, and tumor volume were significant in the low-risk cohort (AUC = 0.71, BS = 0.22). The addition of urology practice increased AUC in the low-risk cohort from 0.71 to 0.76 and reduced BS from 0.22 to 0.21.

CONCLUSION

The urology practice at which a patient is seen is an important predictor for whether patients will initiate AS. Predictions were least accurate for low-risk patients, suggesting that factors such as patient preference play a role in treatment decisions.

Rule-based versus probabilistic selection for active surveillance using three definitions of insignificant prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To study whether probabilistic selection by the use of a nomogram could improve patient selection for active surveillance (AS) compared to the various sets of rule-based AS inclusion criteria currently used.

METHODS

We studied Dutch and Swedish patients participating in the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). We explored which men who were initially diagnosed with cT1-2, Gleason 6 (Gleason pattern ≤3 + 3) had histopathological indolent PCa at RP [defined as pT2, Gleason pattern ≤3 and tumour volume (TV) ≤0.5 or TV ≤ 1.3 ml, and TV no part of criteria (NoTV)]. Rule-based selection was according to the Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS), Klotz, and Johns Hopkins criteria. An existing nomogram to define probability-based selection for AS was refitted for the TV1.3 and NoTV indolent PCa definitions.

RESULTS

619 of 864 men undergoing RP had cT1-2, Gleason 6 disease at diagnosis and were analysed. Median follow-up was 8.9 years. 229 (37%), 356 (58%), and 410 (66%) fulfilled the TV0.5, TV1.3, and NoTV indolent PCa criteria at RP. Discriminating between indolent and significant disease according to area under the curve (AUC) was: TV0.5: 0.658 (PRIAS), 0.523 (Klotz), 0.642 (Hopkins), 0.685 (nomogram). TV1.3: 0.630 (PRIAS), 0.550 (Klotz), 0.615 (Hopkins), 0.646 (nomogram). NoTV: 0.603 (PRIAS), 0.530 (Klotz), 0.589 (Hopkins), 0.608 (nomogram).

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of a nomogram, the Johns Hopkins, and PRIAS rule-based criteria are comparable. Because the nomogram allows individual trade-offs, it could be a good alternative to rigid rule-based criteria.

Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer

Overtreatment of prostate cancer has become evident as studies comparing radical prostatectomy vs watchful waiting have shown that radical treatment benefits only a proportion of patients. Active surveillance was introduced as a management option for prostate cancer at low-risk of progression with the aim to closely observe for disease progression or change of tumour characteristics and offer active treatment if and when necessary. Active surveillance has been reserved for patients with Gleason 6 localised disease and low PSA; however, selection criteria may be widened as intermediate-term outcomes demonstrate excellent safety, efficacy and patient acceptance.

Heterogeneity in D'Amico classification-based low-risk prostate cancer: Differences in upgrading and upstaging according to active surveillance eligibility

BACKGROUND

To date, no study has examined clinical, pathological, and surgical characteristics of D׳Amico low-risk patients according to active surveillance (AS) eligibility.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We relied on patients with low-risk prostate cancer, who were classified based on the D׳Amico classification, treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2008 and 2013 at the Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center. We assessed differences in clinical, pathological, and surgical characteristics in D׳Amico low-risk patients according to AS eligibility (prostate-specific antigen [PSA]≤ 10 ng/ml, Gleason score ≤ 3 + 3, ≤ 2 positive cores,≤5 0% tumor content per core, and ≤ cT1-2a). Multivariable logistic regression analyses targeted 2 end points: (1) presence of either intermediate- or high-risk characteristics (Gleason score ≥ 3+4 or ≥ pT3 or pN1) or (2) exclusive presence of high-risk characteristics (Gleason score ≥ 4+4 or ≥ pT3 or pN1) at RP.

RESULTS

Of 1,331 patients low-risk prostate cancer classified based on the D׳Amico classification, 825 (62%) men were eligible for AS. AS candidates were less frequently either upgraded (55% vs. 78%, P<0.001) or upstaged (8% vs. 15%, P<0.001). Similarly, at final pathology, AS candidates less frequently harbored either intermediate- or high-risk (56% vs. 78%, P<0.001), or exclusive high-risk characteristics (9% vs. 16%, P<0.001). Tumor involvement per core (>50%) (most powerful), number of positive cores, PSA values, and age were independent predictors for either intermediate- or high-risk characteristics at RP. Tumor involvement per core and PSA values were independent predictors for exclusive high-risk characteristics at RP.

CONCLUSIONS

D׳Amico low-risk patients did not have a homogeneous histology at RP. Especially, non-AS candidates were at a higher risk of either upgrading or upstaging at final pathology. Tumor involvement greater than 50% per core was the most powerful indicator of adverse pathology. Therefore, D'Amico low-risk criteria are not safe enough to identify AS candidates.

Apparent diffusion coefficient value and ratio as noninvasive potential biomarkers to predict prostate cancer grading: comparison with prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to test the association between diffusion-weighted MRI and prostate cancer Gleason score at both biopsy and final pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Patients with prostate cancer (n = 72) underwent diffusion-weighted MRI (b values, 0, 800, and 1600 s/mm(2)) with an endorectal coil. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and ADC ratio were obtained in normal and pathologic tissue and were correlated with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (n = 72) and histopathologic (n = 39) Gleason scores using the ANOVA test. ADC accuracy was estimated using ROC curves. RESULTS. Lesions suspicious for prostate cancer were detected in 65 patients. The mean ADC was 1.47 and 0.87 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s for normal and pathologic tissue, respectively (p < 0.001). When we divided the population into four groups (normal tissue and biopsy Gleason scores of 6, 7, and 8-10), then the mean ADC value was 1.47, 0.96, 0.80, and 0.78 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, respectively (p < 0.001). The ADC ratio decreased along with an increase in biopsy Gleason score (66.9%, 56.7%, and 51.5% for Gleason scores of 6, 7 and 8-10, respectively) (ANOVA, p = 0.003) and pathologic Gleason score (ANOVA, p < 0.001). ROC curves had an AUC of 0.94 and 0.86 for ADC and ADC ratio, respectively (p = 0.012 and 0.042, respectively). CONCLUSION. Decreasing ADC values may represent a strong risk factor of harboring a poorly differentiated prostate cancer, independently of biopsy characteristics.

Adverse Pathologic Features at Radical Prostatectomy: Effect of Preoperative Risk on Oncologic Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Up to 30% of patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are found to have features of aggressive disease at radical prostatectomy (RP). Several predictive nomograms and novel genomic markers have been developed to estimate the risk of adverse pathology in men eligible for active surveillance (AS). However, oncologic risk associated with these findings remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the presence of adverse pathologic features at RP in patients eligible for AS is prognostic of poor oncologic outcome independent of pretreatment risk status.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 2660 patients underwent immediate RP at our institution between 1998 and 2008. Patients were stratified as low, intermediate, or high risk according to the D'Amico clinical risk criteria.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The rates of adverse pathology were reported, and the 5-yr risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) was calculated in the presence of aggressive disease.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The 5-yr risk of BCR in patients with extracapsular extension (n=937) was 43% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40-46) overall but only 15% (95% CI, 11-22) for those who met the criteria for low risk (n=181). For the 473 patients with pathologic Gleason score 4+3, the risk of recurrence at 5 yr was 41% (95% CI, 37-46) overall, 13% (95% CI, 5-27) for low-risk men (n=41), 41% (95% CI, 35-47) for intermediate-risk men (n=287), and 51% (95% CI, 43-60) for high-risk men (n=145). Limitations include use of BCR as the study end point and surrogate for oncologic outcome in men who received curative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of pathologically unfavorable disease in patients eligible for AS is not informative as to the safety of this treatment modality. We question the relevance of adverse pathology as the end point for predictive tools designed to guide treatment decisions in low-risk PCa.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The risk of biochemical recurrence associated with adverse pathologic findings at prostatectomy is reduced by approximately 50% in men with clinically low-risk prostate cancer.

Gleason Upgrading with Time in a Large Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohort

PURPOSE

We report the percentage of patients on active surveillance who had disease pathologically upgraded and factors that predict for upgrading on surveillance biopsies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients in our active surveillance database with at least 1 repeat prostate biopsy were included. Histological upgrading was defined as any increase in primary or secondary Gleason grade on repeat biopsy. Multivariate analysis was used to determine baseline and dynamic factors associated with Gleason upgrading. This information was used to develop a nomogram to predict for upgrading or treatment in patients electing for active surveillance.

RESULTS

Of 862 patients in our cohort 592 had 2 or more biopsies. Median followup was 6.4 years. Of the patients 20% were intermediate risk, 0.3% were high risk and all others were low risk. During active surveillance 31.3% of cases were upgraded. On multivariate analysis clinical stage T2, higher prostate specific antigen and higher percentage of cores involved with disease at the time of diagnosis predicted for upgrading. A total of 27 cases (15% of those upgraded) were Gleason 8 or higher at upgrading, and 62% of all 114 upgraded cases went on to have active treatment. The nomogram incorporated clinical stage, age, prostate specific antigen, core positivity and Gleason score. The concordance index was 0.61.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large re-biopsy cohort with medium-term followup, most cases have not been pathologically upgraded to date. A model predicting for upgrading or radical treatment was developed which could be useful in counseling patients considering active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study of 2,323 patients

OBJECTIVE

To test the expandability of active surveillance (AS) to Gleason score 3+4 cancers by assessing the unfavorable disease risk in a large multi-institutional cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis including 2,323 patients with localized Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer who underwent a radical prostatectomy between 2005 and 2013 from 6 academic centers. We analyzed the rates of biopsy downgrading/upgrading and advanced stage in the overall cohort by employing standardized AS criteria (using biopsy Gleason score 3+4).

RESULTS

The final pathologic Gleason score was 3+3 = 6 in 8%, 3+4 = 7 in 67%, 4+3 = 7 in 20%, and 8 to 10 in 5% cases. The overall rate of unfavorable disease (upgrading or advanced stage or both) was 46%. In multivariable analysis, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level>10 ng/ml, PSA density (PSAD) >0.15 ng/ml/g, clinical stage >T1, and>2 positive cores were predictors of unfavorable disease. According to the AS criteria used, the risk of unfavorable disease ranged from 30% to 42%. In patients without any risk factor (PSA level≤ 10 ng/ml, PSAD ≤ 0.15 ng/ml/g, T1c, and ≤ 2 positive cores), the unfavorable disease rate was 19%. The main limitations of this study are the retrospective design and nonstandardization of pathologic assessment between centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately half of patients with biopsy Gleason score 3+4 cancer have unfavorable disease at final pathology. Nevertheless, expanding AS eligibility to these patients may be acceptable provided adherence to strict selection criteria leading to a<20% risk of unfavorable disease. Future tools for selection such as magnetic resonance imaging, early rebiopsy, and serum markers may be especially beneficial in this group of patients.

TRUS-MRI image registration: a paradigm shift in the diagnosis of significant prostate cancer

Accuracy of multiparametric MRI has greatly improved the ability of localizing tumor foci of prostate cancer. This property can be used to perform a TRUS-MR image registration, new technological advance, which allows for an overlay of an MRI onto a TRUS image to target a prostate biopsy toward a suspicious area Three types of registration have been developed: cognitive-based, sensor-based, and organ-based registration. Cognitive registration consists of aiming a suspicious area during biopsy with the knowledge of the lesion location identified on multiparametric MRI. Sensor-based registration consists of tracking in real time the TRUS probe with a magnetic device, achieving a global positioning system which overlays in real-time prostate image on both modalities. Its main limitation is that it does not take into account prostate and patient motion during biopsy. Two systems (Artemis and Uronav) have been developed to partially circumvent this drawback. Organ-based registration (Koelis) does not aim to track the TRUS probe, but the prostate itself to compute in a 3D acquisition the TRUS prostate shape, allowing for a registration with the corresponding 3D MRI shape. This system is not limited by prostate/patient motion and allows for a deformation of the organ during registration. Pros and cons of each technique and the rationale for a targeted biopsy only policy are discussed.

miR-19, miR-345, miR-519c-5p serum levels predict adverse pathology in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance

Serum microRNAs hold great promise as easily accessible and measurable biomarkers of disease. In prostate cancer, serum miRNA signatures have been associated with the presence of disease as well as correlated with previously validated risk models. However, it is unclear whether miRNAs can provide independent prognostic information beyond current risk models. Here, we focus on a group of low-risk prostate cancer patients who were eligible for active surveillance, but chose surgery. A major criteria for the low risk category is a Gleason score of 6 or lower based on pre-surgical biopsy. However, a third of these patients are upgraded to Gleason 7 on post surgical pathological analysis. Both in a discovery and a validation cohort, we find that pre-surgical serum levels of miR-19, miR-345 and miR-519c-5p can help identify these patients independent of their pre-surgical age, PSA, stage, and percent biopsy involvement. A combination of the three miRNAs increased the area under a receiver operator characteristics curve from 0.77 to 0.94 (p<0.01). Also, when combined with the CAPRA risk model the miRNA signature significantly enhanced prediction of patients with Gleason 7 disease. In-situ hybridizations of matching tumors showed miR-19 upregulation in transformed versus normal-appearing tumor epithelial, but independent of tumor grade suggesting an alternative source for the increase in serum miR-19a/b levels or the release of pre-existing intracellular miR-19a/b upon progression. Together, these data show that serum miRNAs can predict relatively small steps in tumor progression improving the capacity to predict disease risk and, therefore, potentially drive clinical decisions in prostate cancer patients. It will be important to validate these findings in a larger multi-institutional study as well as with independent methodologies.

Detection rate of anterior prostate cancer in 226 patients submitted to initial and repeat transperineal biopsy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the detection rate of anterior zone (AZ) prostate cancer (PCa) in patients submitted to initial and repeat transperineal prostate biopsy.

METHODS

From January 2013 to August 2013, 226 patients (median age 64 years) with negative digital rectal examination underwent initial (144 cases) and repeat (82 cases) transperineal prostate biopsy for PSA >10 ng/ml, PSA 4.1-10.0 or 2.6-4.0 ng/ml with free/total PSA ≤25% and ≤20%, respectively. A median of 22 versus 32 cores were performed, including 4 cores of the AZ versus 6 cores (4 anterior plus 2 cores of the transition zone, TZ) at initial versus repeat biopsy, respectively. The detection rate of PCa of the peripheral zone (PZ), AZ and TZ was prospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

The median PSA was 7.6 ng/ml; overall, a stage cT1c PCa was found in 104/226 (46%) patients, in 70 (48.6%) and 34 (41.5%) of the men who underwent initial and repeat biopsy, respectively. An AZ PCa was found in 11.5 vs. 8.8% (p = 0.32) of the patients submitted to initial versus repeat biopsy, respectively. AZ cancers demonstrated a number of positive cores (p = 0.03), greatest percentage of cancer (p = 0.001) and total percentage of cancer (p = 0.001) significantly lower in comparison with PZ PCa; moreover, 56.2 vs. 36.5% of AZ versus PZ PCa were characterized by a microfocus of cancer (p = 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

AZ biopsies increase the detection rate of PCa (about 10% of cases) at initial and repeat biopsy, allowing reduction of the biopsy false-negative rate.

Limited ability of existing nomograms to predict outcomes in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the ability of current nomograms to predict disease progression at repeat biopsy or at delayed radical prostatectomy (RP) in a prospectively accrued cohort of patients managed by active surveillance (AS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 273 patients meeting low-risk criteria who were managed by AS and who underwent multiple biopsies and/or delayed RP were included in the study. The Kattan (base, medium and full), Steyerberg, Nakanishi and Chun nomograms were used to calculate the likelihood of indolent disease ('nomogram probability') as well as to predict 'biopsy progression' by grade or volume, 'surgical progression' by grade or stage, or 'any progression' on repeat biopsy or surgery. We evaluated the associations between each nomogram probability and each progression outcome using logistic regression with (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) values and decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

The nomogram probabilities of indolent disease were lower in patients with biopsy progression (P < 0.01) and any progression on repeat biopsy or surgical pathology (P < 0.05). In regression analyses, nomograms showed a modest ability to predict biopsy progression, adjusted for total number of biopsies (AUC range 0.52-0.67) and any progression (AUC range 0.52-0.70). Decision curve analyses showed that all the nomograms, except for the Kattan base model, have similar value in predicting biopsy progression and any progression. Nomogram probabilities were not associated with surgical progression in a subgroup of 58 men who underwent delayed RP.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing nomograms have only modest accuracy in predicting the outcomes of patients undergoing AS. Improvements to existing nomograms should be made before they are implemented in clinical practice and used to select patients for AS.

Imaging and Markers as Novel Diagnostic Tools in Detecting Insignificant Prostate Cancer: A Critical Overview

Recent therapeutic advances for managing low-risk prostate cancer include the active surveillance and focal treatment. However, locating a tumor and detecting its volume by adequate sampling is still problematic. Development of predictive biomarkers guiding individual therapeutic choices remains an ongoing challenge. At the same time, prostate cancer magnetic resonance imaging is gaining increasing importance for prostate diagnostics. The high morphological resolution of T2-weighted imaging and functional MRI methods may increase the specificity and sensitivity of diagnostics. Also, recent studies founded an ability of novel biomarkers to identify clinically insignificant prostate cancer, risk of progression, and association with poor differentiation and, therefore, with clinical significance. Probably, the above mentioned methods would improve tumor characterization in terms of its volume, aggressiveness, and focality. In this review, we attempted to evaluate the applications of novel imaging techniques and biomarkers in assessing the significance of the prostate cancer.

Utility of diffusional kurtosis imaging as a marker of adverse pathologic outcomes among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates undergoing radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare findings at nongaussian diffusional kurtosis imaging and conventional diffusion-weighted MRI as markers of adverse pathologic outcomes among prostate cancer patients who are active surveillance candidates and choose to undergo prostatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-eight active surveillance candidates (prostate-specific antigen concentration, < 10 ng/mL; clinical tumor category less than T2a; Gleason score, 3 + 3; ≤ 25% of biopsy cores positive for tumor; ≤ 50% tumor involvement of any individual core; ≤ 20% tumor involvement across all cores) who underwent prostatectomy and preoperative 3-T MRI including diffusional kurtosis imaging (b values, 0, 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 s/mm(2)) were included. Adverse pathologic features at prostatectomy were defined using two schemes of varying stringency. One scheme (less stringent) was presence of a Gleason score greater than 6 or extracapsular extension (n = 19). The other scheme (more stringent) was presence of a Gleason score greater than 6, extracapsular extension, or an index tumor 10 mm or larger (n = 35). Parametric maps displaying standard apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), kurtosis (K) representing nongaussian diffusion behavior, and diffusion (D) representing a diffusion coefficient adjusted for nongaussian (kurtosis) behavior were reviewed, and the most abnormal region was recorded for each metric. Associations between these metrics and the presence of adverse final pathologic findings were assessed with unpaired Student t tests and receiver operating characteristic analyses.

RESULTS

For both schemes, only D was significantly lower in patients with adverse final pathologic findings (p = 0.006, p = 0.025). K tended to be greater in patients with adverse final pathologic findings for the more stringent scheme (p = 0.072). ADC was not significantly different in the presence of adverse final pathologic findings for either scheme (p = 0.357, p = 0.383). With either scheme, D had a larger area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) for predicting adverse final pathologic results (AUC, 0.691 and 0.743) than did ADC (AUC, 0.569 and 0.655) or K (AUC, 0.617 and 0.714), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.183, p = 0.734).

CONCLUSION

Preliminary results suggest that diffusional kurtosis imaging findings may have more value than findings at conventional diffusion-weighted MRI as a marker of adverse final pathologic outcome among active surveillance candidates.

Oncological outcomes in patients potentially eligible for active surveillance who underwent radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether there are differences in the oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy (adverse pathology and biochemical recurrence) based on clinical selection criteria used in two active surveillance (AS) protocols.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

442 patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (CP) underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution between August 2003 and December 2009. We selected patients with low-risk CP, which could have been included in an AS program. Patients were divided into two groups: group i, those who met the most strict surveillance criteria described by Epstein (PSAD<.15; T1/T2a;<2 positive core, Gleason≤6,<50% involvement of the core) and group ii, those meeting the more open criteria described by Klotz (PSA≤10 or<15 at age 70, Gleason≤6 or<7 [3+4] in over 70 years). We compared both groups to determine differences in pathological stage, positive surgical margins and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

RESULTS

Of the 442 patients 48% (213 patients) had low-risk PC, and become potential candidates for an AS program. Of the patients operated on 17% (76 patients) met the criteria for AS as of Epstein's and 48% (213 patients) according to Klotz. Comparing patients in both groups there were no statistically significant differences in the presence of pT3 (7.9% vs 10.8%) P=.55, positive margins (22.4% vs. 28.3%) P=.41, nor in biochemical recurrence at 3 years (5.3% vs 5.6%) P=.86.

CONCLUSIONS

In our series of patients theoretically candidates for inclusion in a program of active surveillance, we found no differences in the percentage of patients with pathological stage pT3, positive margins and biochemical recurrence according to clinical inclusion criteria currently used.

The Study of Active Monitoring in Sweden (SAMS): a randomized study comparing two different follow-up schedules for active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

Only a minority of patients with low-risk prostate cancer needs treatment, but the methods for optimal selection of patients for treatment are not established. This article describes the Study of Active Monitoring in Sweden (SAMS), which aims to improve those methods.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

SAMS is a prospective, multicentre study of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. It consists of a randomized part comparing standard rebiopsy and follow-up with an extensive initial rebiopsy coupled with less intensive follow-up and no further scheduled biopsies (SAMS-FU), as well as an observational part (SAMS-ObsQoL). Quality of life is assessed with questionnaires and compared with patients receiving primary curative treatment. SAMS-FU is planned to randomize 500 patients and SAMS-ObsQoL to include at least 500 patients during 5 years. The primary endpoint is conversion to active treatment. The secondary endpoints include symptoms, distant metastases and mortality. All patients will be followed for 10-15 years.

RESULTS

Inclusion started in October 2011. In March 2013, 148 patients were included at 13 Swedish urological centres.

CONCLUSIONS

It is hoped that the results of SAMS will contribute to fewer patients with indolent, low-risk prostate cancer receiving unnecessary treatment and more patients on active surveillance who need treatment receiving it when the disease is still curable. The less intensive investigational follow-up in the SAMS-FU trial would reduce the healthcare resources allocated to this large group of patients if it replaced the present standard schedule.

Regional, provider, and economic factors associated with the choice of active surveillance in the treatment of men with localized prostate cancer

Data on initial treatment of 8232 cases of localized prostate cancer diagnosed in 2004 were obtained by medical record abstraction (including hospital and outpatient locations) from seven state cancer registries participating in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Breast and Prostate Cancer Data Quality and Patterns of Care Study. Distinction was made between men receiving no therapy with no monitoring plan (no therapy/no plan [NT/NP]) and those receiving active surveillance (AS). Overall, 8.6% received NT/NP and 4.7% received AS. Older age at diagnosis, lower clinical risk group, and certain registry locations were significant predictors of use of both AS and NT/NP. AS was also related to having more severe comorbidities, whereas nonwhite race was predicted receiving NT/NP. Men receiving AS lived in areas with a higher number of urologists per 100 000 men than those receiving NT/NP. In summary, physician and clinical factors were stronger predictors of AS, whereas demographic and regional factors were related to receiving NT/NP. Physicians appear reluctant to recommend AS for younger patients with no comorbidities.

Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance?

PURPOSE

To determine whether multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging can help identify patients with prostate cancer who would most appropriately be candidates for active surveillance (AS) according to current guidelines and to compare the results with those of conventional clinical assessment scoring systems, including the D'Amico, Epstein, and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) systems, on the basis of findings at prostatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant retrospectively designed study included 133 patients (mean age, 59.3 years) with a mean prostate-specific antigen level of 6.73 ng/mL (median, 4.39 ng/mL) who underwent multiparametric MR imaging at 3.0 T before radical prostatectomy. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. Patients were then retrospectively classified as to whether they would have met AS eligibility criteria or were better served by surgery. AS eligibility criteria for prostatectomy specimens were a dominant tumor smaller than 0.5 mL without Gleason 4 or 5 patterns or extracapsular or seminal vesicle invasion. Conventional clinical assessment scores (the D'Amico, Epstein, and CAPRA scoring systems) were compared with multiparametric MR imaging findings for predicting AS candidates. The level of significance of difference between scoring systems was determined by using the χ(2) test for categoric variables with the level of significance set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Among 133 patients, 14 were eligible for AS on the basis of prostatectomy results. The sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and overall accuracy, respectively, were 93%, 25%, and 70% for the D'Amico system, 64%, 45%, and 88% for the Epstein criteria, and 93%, 20%, and 59% for the CAPRA scoring system for predicting AS candidates (P < .005 for all, χ(2) test), while multiparametric MR imaging had a sensitivity of 93%, a PPV of 57%, and an overall accuracy of 92% (P < .005).

CONCLUSION

Multiparametric MR imaging provides useful additional information to existing clinicopathologic scoring systems of prostate cancer and improves the assignment of treatment (eg, AS or active treatment).

The role of targeted focal therapy in the management of low-risk prostate cancer: update on current challenges

Prostate cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers among men in the United States, second only to nonmelanomatous skin cancer. Since prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing came into widespread use in the late 1980s, there has been a sharp increase in annual prostate cancer incidence. Cancer-specific mortality, though, is relatively low. The majority of these cancers will not progress to mortal disease, yet most men who are diagnosed opt for treatment as opposed to observation or active surveillance (AS). These men are thus burdened with the morbidities associated with aggressive treatments, commonly incontinence and erectile dysfunction, without receiving a mortality benefit. It is therefore necessary to both continue investigating outcomes associated with AS and to develop less invasive techniques for those who desire treatment but without the significant potential for quality-of-life side effects seen with aggressive modalities. The goals of this paper are to discuss the problems of overdiagnosis and overtreatment since the advent of PSA screening as well as the potential for targeted focal therapy (TFT) to bridge the gap between AS and definitive therapies. Furthermore, patient selection criteria for TFT, costs, side effects, and brachytherapy template-guided three-dimensional mapping biopsies (3DMB) for tumor localization will also be explored.

International multicentre study examining selection criteria for active surveillance in men undergoing radical prostatectomy

Background:

The controversies concerning possible overtreatment of prostate cancer, highlighted by debate over PSA screening, have highlighted active surveillance (AS) as an alternative management option for appropriate men. Regional differences in the underlying prevalence of PSA testing may alter the pre-test probability for high-risk disease, which can potentially interfere with the performance of selection criteria for AS. In a multicentre study from three different countries, we examine men who were initially suitable for AS according to the Toronto and Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria, that underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) in regards to:1.the proportion of pathological reclassification(Gleason score ⩾7, ⩾pT3 disease),2.predictors of high-risk disease,3.create a predictive model to assist with selection of men suitable for AS.

Methods:

From three centres in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, data on men who underwent RP were retrospectively reviewed (n=2329). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of high-risk disease. A nomogram was generated by logistic regression analysis, and performance characterised by receiver operating characteristic curves.

Results:

For men suitable for AS according to the Toronto (n=800) and PRIAS (410) criteria, the rates for upgrading were 50.6, 42.7%, and upstaging 17.6, 12.4%, respectively. Significant predictors of high-risk disease were:•Toronto criteria: increasing age, cT2 disease, centre of diagnosis and number of positive cores.•PRIAS criteria: increasing PSA and cT2 disease.Cambridge had a high pT3a rate (26 vs 12%). To assist selection of men in the United Kingdom for AS, from the Cambridge data, we generated a nomogram predicting high-risk features in patients who meet the Toronto criteria (AUC of 0.72).

Conclusion:

The proportion of pathological reclassification in our cohort was higher than previously reported. Care must be used when applying the AS criteria generated from one population to another. With more stringent selection criteria, there is less reclassification but also fewer men who may benefit from AS.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: past, present and future

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews recent developments in the use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

The treatment of localized prostate cancer continues to be a major challenge for urologic oncologists. Screening with prostate-specific antigen has resulted in increased numbers of low-risk prostate cancers being detected. Aggressive whole-gland therapy with surgery, or radiation therapy is associated with potentially life-altering treatment-related side effects such as urinary incontinence, bowel toxicity and erectile dysfunction. The goal of active surveillance is to avoid or delay the adverse events associated with prostate cancer therapy while still allowing for curative intervention in the future, if needed.

SUMMARY

Active surveillance is a reasonable treatment option for many men with low-risk, and some men with intermediate-risk, prostate cancer. Additional research is needed to determine the optimal active surveillance inclusion criteria, monitoring schedule, and treatment triggers. It is hoped that advances in prostate imaging, biomarkers, and focal therapy will foster greater use of active surveillance in appropriately selected men to optimize quality-of-life without compromising cancer outcomes.