Impact of time from diagnosis to treatment on erectile function outcomes after radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Concerns exist about the effect of delaying treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) regarding both oncological and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of time from diagnosis to RP on post-operative erectile function (EF) outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed data for 827 patients treated with RP at a single center from 2002 to 2017. The International Index of Erectile Function-EF (IIEF-EF) was compiled by every patient (EF recovery equal to IIEF-EF ≥ 22). Time from diagnosis to treatment was defined as the interval between biopsy and RP. Cox regression analysis was used to test the impact of time to surgery on the probability of EF recovery. Kaplan-Meier analysis compared the cumulative incidence of EF recovery according to time from diagnosis to surgery. The impact of time to RP on EF was tested also in a sub-cohort of patients eligible for active surveillance (AS).

RESULTS

Overall, low-, intermediate-, and high-risk PCa was found in 306 (37%), 422 (51%), and 99 (12%) patients. Of them, 148 (17.9%) would have been eligible for AS. A total of 152 (18%) and 22 (2.7%) patients were treated after 6 and 12 months from diagnosis. The overall probability of EF recovery was 32% (95% CI: 29-36) at 24 months. Cox regression analysis showed that time from biopsy to surgery was not associated with a different chance of EF recovery (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.97-1.05; p = 0.7). At Kaplan-Meier analysis, the cumulative incidence of EF recovery did not differ between patients treated within 6 months, from 6 to 12 months and after 12 months from diagnosis. Similar findings were obtained for patients eligible for AS.

DISCUSSION

Patients may be reassured regarding their chance of post-operative EF recovery in the case of a delayed surgical treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Delaying surgery after PCa diagnosis does not affect post-operative EF recovery outcomes regardless of oncological risk.

[Pathology findings after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in patients eligible for active surveillance: Contribution of multiparametric MRI to treatment decision]

OBJECTIVES

To analyze, in patients with prostate cancer (PC) potentially eligible for active surveillance (AS), whether multiparametric-MRI (mp-MRI) predicts presence of clinically significant cancer on radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen.

METHODS

We identified 77 men with PC eligible for AS (PSA≤15ng/mL, stage≤T2a, Gleason score≤6, up to 3 positive cores, maximal cancer core length≤5mm) who underwent RP between 01/2008 and 08/2015. All patients had prebiopsy mp-MRI followed by systematic±targeted biopsies. For each patient, the likelihood of the presence of cancer on mp-MRI was assigned using Likert scale (1 to 5). The predictive factors for the presence of significant cancer on RP specimen (Gleason score≥7 and/or tumoral maximal diameter>10mm) were evaluated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Median age was 61 and median PSA was 6.7ng/mL. Overall, 49 (64%) patients had a positive mp-MRI (score≥3). Clinically significant cancer on RP specimen was found in 45 (58%) patients (69% in MRI-positive patients vs 39% in MRI-negative patients). In multivariate analysis, a positive MRI was a predictive factor for the presence of significant cancer on the surgical specimen (OR=3.0; CI95% [1.01-8.88]; P=0.04), as was age (OR=1.17; CI95% [1.05-1.31]; P=0.004) and PSAD (OR=1.10; CI95% [1.01-1.20]; P=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Mp-MRI is a useful exam for selecting patients eligible for AS even if the situation remains unclear after prostate biopsies including targeted biopsies. Upon confirmation by further studies, mp-MRI should be considered as an independent criterion before entering an AS program.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Comparison of 11 Active Surveillance Protocols in Contemporary European Men Treated With Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare 11 active surveillance (AS) protocols in contemporary European men treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) at the Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Analyzed were 3498 RP patients, from 2005 to 2016, who underwent ≥ 10 core biopsies and fulfilled at least 1 of 11 examined AS entry definitions. We tested proportions of AS eligibility, ineligibility, presence of primary Gleason 4/5, upstage, and combinations thereof at RP, as well as 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival (BFS).

RESULTS

The most and least stringent criteria were very low risk National Comprehensive Cancer Network and Royal Marsden with 18.8% and 96.1% of AS-eligible patients, respectively. Rates of primary Gleason 4/5 at RP, upstaging, or both features, respectively, ranged from 2.3% to 6.7%, 6.1% to 18.2%, and 7.1% to 21.0% for those 2 AS entry definitions. The range of individuals deemed AS-ineligible between the same 2 AS entry definitions, despite not harboring unfavorable pathology (primary Gleason pattern 4/5, upstage, or both), was 80.3% to 3.7%, 78.3% to 3.4%, and 77.8% to 3.4%, respectively. BFS rates showed narrow variability, with a range of 85.9% to 91.8%.

CONCLUSION

Use of stringent AS entry definitions reduces the number of AS-eligible patients, which is related to a select range in individual entry parameters. Moreover, rates of unfavorable pathology at RP as much as tripled between most and least stringent AS entry definitions. However, less stringent AS entry definitions result in the lowest AS-ineligibility rates, in men without unfavorable pathology. BFS rates were virtually invariably high. Clinicians should know differences in key parameters underlying each AS entry definition, associated effect on rates of eligibility, and potential misclassification of individuals.

Predicting Low-Risk Prostate Cancer from Transperineal Saturation Biopsies

Introduction. To assess the performance of five previously described clinicopathological definitions of low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Materials and Methods. Men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) for clinical stage ≤T2, PSA <10 ng/mL, Gleason score <8 PC, diagnosed by transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy were included. The performance of five previously described criteria (i.e., criteria 1-5, criterion 1 stringent (Gleason score 6 + ≤5 mm total max core length PC + ≤3 mm max per core length PC) up to criterion 5 less stringent (Gleason score 6-7 with ≤5% Gleason grade 4) was analysed to assess ability of each to predict insignificant disease in RP specimens (defined as Gleason score ≤6 and total tumour volume <2.5 mL, or Gleason score 7 with ≤5% grade 4 and total tumour volume <0.7 mL). Results. 994 men who underwent RP were included. Criterion 4 (Gleason score 6) performed best with area under the curve of receiver operating characteristics 0.792. At decision curve analysis, criterion 4 was deemed clinically the best performing transperineal saturation biopsy-based definition for low-risk PC. Conclusions. Gleason score 6 disease demonstrated a superior trade-off between sensitivity and specificity for clarifying low-risk PC that can guide treatment and be used as reference test in diagnostic studies.

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.

Age is Associated with Upgrading at Confirmatory Biopsy among Men with Prostate Cancer Treated with Active Surveillance

PURPOSE

Active surveillance is increasingly recommended for older men with low risk prostate cancer. Although older men have higher all cause mortality, they also have higher prostate cancer specific mortality. We hypothesized that older age is associated with an increased risk of Gleason score upgrading at confirmatory biopsy when controlling for prostate volume.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data on 1,130 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with active surveillance from 1991 through 2011. We included 646 patients with clinical Gleason 6 or less, stage T2a or less prostate cancer, a confirmatory biopsy within 2 years of diagnostic biopsy and prostate magnetic resonance imaging before confirmatory biopsy. The primary outcome was Gleason score upgrading to 7 or greater on confirmatory biopsy. We used logistic regression to estimate the effect of age on upgrading, adjusting for magnetic resonance imaging prostate volume and other potential confounders.

RESULTS

Median age was 66 years (IQR 61-72) and median magnetic resonance imaging prostate volume was 41 ml (IQR 29-55). At confirmatory biopsy disease was upgraded in 55 of 646 patients (9%) and unchanged in 290 (45%) and biopsy was negative in 297 (46%). Older age was associated with higher odds of upgrading (adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, p=0.009). Larger prostate volume was associated with lower odds of upgrading (adjusted OR 0.80/10 ml increase, 95% CI 0.7-0.9, p=0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that older age is associated with an increased risk of misclassification on diagnostic biopsy. Older men who are interested in active surveillance should be counseled about the risks and benefits of confirmatory biopsy.

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.

What is the optimal definition of misclassification in patients with very low-risk prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance? Results from a multi-institutional series

BACKGROUND

The risk of unfavorable prostate cancer in active surveillance (AS) candidates is nonnegligible. However, what represents an adverse pathologic outcome in this setting is unknown. We aimed at assessing the optimal definition of misclassification and its effect on recurrence in AS candidates treated with radical prostatectomy (RP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Overall, 1,710 patients eligible for AS according to Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance criteria treated with RP between 2000 and 2013 at 3 centers were evaluated. Patients were stratified according to pathology results at RP: organ-confined disease and pathologic Gleason score ≤ 6 (group 1); organ-confined disease and Gleason score 3+4 (group 2); and non-organ-confined disease, Gleason score ≥ 4+3, and nodal invasion (group 3). Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as 2 consecutive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 0.2 ng/ml. Kaplan-Meier curves assessed time to BCR. Multivariable Cox regression analyses tested the association between pathologic features and BCR. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified the predictors of adverse pathologic characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, 926 (54.2%), 653 (33.0%), and 220 (12.9%) patients were categorized in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Median follow-up was 32.2 months. The 5-year BCR-free survival rate was 94.2%. Patients in group 3 had lower BCR-free survival rates compared with those in group 1 (79.1% vs. 97.0%, P<0.001). No differences were observed between patients included in group 1 vs. group 2 (97.0% vs. 94.7%, P = 0.1). These results were confirmed at multivariable analyses and after stratification according to margin status. Older age and PSA density ≥ 10 ng/ml/ml were associated with higher risk of unfavorable pathologic characteristics (i.e., inclusion in group 3; all P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients eligible for AS treated with RP, only men with Gleason score ≥ 4+3 or non-organ-confined disease at final pathology were at increased risk of BCR. These individuals represent the real misclassified AS patients, who can be predicted based on older age and higher PSA density.

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.

Racial disparities in prostate cancer-specific mortality in men with low-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Men with low-risk prostate cancer (CaP) are considered unlikely to die of CaP and have the option of active surveillance. This study evaluated whether African American (AA) men who present with low-risk disease are at higher risk for death from CaP than white men.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The authors identified 56,045 men with low-risk CaP (T1-T2a, Gleason score ≤ 6, prostate-specific antigen ≤ 10 ng/mL) diagnosed between 2004 and 2009 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Fine-Gray competing-risks regression analyses were used to analyze the effect of race on prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) after adjusting for known prognostic and sociodemographic factors in 51,315 men (43,792 white; 7523 AA) with clinical follow-up information available.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 46 months, 258 patients (209 [0.48%] white and 49 [0.65%] AA men) died from CaP. Both AA race (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.03-2.05; P = .032) and noncurative management (AHR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.15-1.95; P = .003) were significantly associated with an increased risk of PCSM. When analyzing only patients who underwent curative treatment, AA race (AHR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.04-2.53; P = .034) remained significantly associated with increased PCSM.

CONCLUSION

Among men with low-risk prostate cancer, AA race compared with white race was associated with a higher risk of PCSM, raising the possibility that clinicians may need to exercise caution when recommending active surveillance for AA men with low-risk disease. Further studies are needed to ultimately determine whether guidelines for active surveillance should take race into account.

Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate predictors of more aggressive disease and the role of multiparametric 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in selecting patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance (AS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively assessed 298 patients with prostate cancer who met the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria, defined as T1c/T2, PSA level of ≤10 ng/mL, PSA density (PSAD) of <0.2 ng/mL(2) , Gleason score <7, and one or two positive biopsy cores. All patients underwent preoperative MRI, including T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, as well as radical prostatectomy (RP) between June 2005 and December 2011. Imaging results were correlated with pathological findings to evaluate the ability of MRI to select patients for AS.

RESULTS

In 35 (11.7%) patients, no discrete cancer was visible on MRI, while in the remaining 263 (88.3%) patients, a discrete cancer was visible. Pathological examination of RP specimens resulted in upstaging (>T2) in 21 (7%) patients, upgrading (Gleason score >6) in 136 (45.6%), and a diagnosis of unfavourable disease in 142 (47.7%) patients. The 263 patients (88.3%) with visible cancer on imaging were more likely to have their cancer status upgraded (49.8% vs 14.3%) and be diagnosed with unfavourable disease (52.1% vs 14.3%) than the 35 patients (11.7%) with no cancer visible upon imaging, and these differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001 for all). A visible cancer lesion on MRI, PSAD, and patient age were found to be predictors of unfavourable disease in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

MRI can predict adverse pathological features and be used to assess the eligibility of patients with prostate cancer for AS.

Initial management of prostate-specific antigen-detected, low-risk prostate cancer and the risk of death from prostate cancer

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: The recently published Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) did not identify differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality or all-cause mortality among patients with low-risk disease managed conservatively vs those managed definitively; however, recently published data suggest that older men may harbour more aggressive disease than is identified at biopsy owing to sampling error and undergrading. Whether older men with apparent low-risk disease are placed at risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality when managed conservatively remains unknown. The study used population-level data to show that non-curative approaches for older men with low-risk prostate cancer do result in an increased risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality. Differences between our study and the PIVOT trial include the fact that we included a larger sample size, analysed the data using an 'as-treated' approach, and included a healthier cohort of men as evinced by lower 4-year all-cause mortality estimates in our study than in the PIVOT. Our results suggest that older men with apparent low-risk prostate cancer are at risk of undergrading, which probably explains the differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality observed between men managed conservatively vs those managed definitively. Our study suggests that alternative approaches to excluding occult, high grade prostate cancer are needed in such men.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether older age in men with low-risk prostate cancer increases the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) when non-curative approaches are selected as initial management.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study cohort consisted of 27 969 men, with a median age of 67 years, with prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-detected, low-risk prostate cancer (clinical category T1c, Gleason score ≤6, and PSA ≤10) identified by the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results programme between 2004 and 2007. Fine and Gray's competing risk regression analysis was used to evaluate whether management with non-curative vs curative therapy was associated with an increased risk of PCSM after adjusting for PSA level, age at diagnosis and year of diagnosis.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 2.75 years, 1121 men died, 60 (5.4%) from prostate cancer. Both older age (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.08; P < 0.001) and non-curative treatment (AHR 3.34; 95% CI 1.97-5.67; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with an increased risk of PCSM. Men > the median age experienced increased estimates of PCSM when treated with non-curative as opposed to curative intent (P < 0.001); this finding was not seen in men ≤ the median age (P = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

Pending prospective validation, our study suggests that non-curative approaches for older men with 'low-risk' prostate cancer result in an increased risk of PCSM, suggesting the need for alternative approaches to exclude occult, high grade prostate cancer in these men.