PSA doubling time predicts the outcome after active surveillance in screening-detected prostate cancer: results from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, Sweden section

The risk of prostate cancer on incidental finding of an avid prostate uptake on 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for non-prostate cancer-related pathology: A single centre retrospective study

Objective

To review the risk of prostate cancer (PCa) in men with incidentally reported increased intraprostatic uptake at 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) ordered at Department of Urology, The Wesley Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia for non-PCa related pathology.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of consecutive men between August 2014 and August 2019 presenting to a single institution for 18F-FDG PET/CT for non-prostate related conditions was conducted. Men were classified as benign, indeterminate, or malignant depending of the results of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA velocity, biopsy histopathology, and three-Tesla (3 T) multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score, or gallium-68-prostate-specific membrane antigen (68Ga-PSMA) PET/CT results.

Results

Three percent (273/9122) of men demonstrated 18F-FDG avidity within the prostate. Eighty-five percent (231/273) were further investigated, including with PSA tests (227/231, 98.3%), 3 T mpMRI (68/231, 29.4%), 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT (33/231, 14.3%), and prostate biopsy (57/231, 24.7%). Results were considered benign in 130/231 (56.3%), indeterminate in 31/231 (13.4%), and malignant in 70/231 (30.3%). PCa was identified in 51/57 (89.5%) of the men who proceeded to biopsy, including 26/27 (96.3%) men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System scores 4-5 mpMRI and six men with a positive 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. The most common Gleason score on biopsy was greater than or equal to 4+5 (14/51, 27.5%). 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT was concordant with the 18F-FDG findings in 26/33 (78.8%). All 13 men with a positive concordant 18F-FDG, 3 T mpMRI, and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT had PCa on biopsy. There was no statistically significant difference in the 18F-FDG maximum standardized uptake value between the benign or malignant groups (5.7 vs. 6.1; p=0.580).

Conclusion

In this study, after an incidental finding of an avid intraprostatic lesion on 18F-FDG PET/CT, 70 of the 231 cases (30.3%; 0.8% of the entire cohort) had results consistent with PCa, most commonly as Gleason score greater than or equal to 4+5 disease. Unless there is limited life expectancy due to competing medical co-morbidity, men with an incidental finding of intraprostatic uptake on 18F-FDG should be further investigated using principles of PCa detection.

Commentary: On measurement error, PSA doubling time, and prostate cancer

Exposure measurement error is a pervasive problem for epidemiology research projects designed to provide valid and precise statistical evidence supporting postulated exposure-disease relationships of interest. The purpose of this commentary is to highlight an important real-life example of this exposure measurement error problem and to provide a simple and useful diagnostic tool for physicians and their patients that corrects for the exposure measurement error. More specifically, prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) is a widely used measure for guiding future treatment options for patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Numerous papers have been published claiming that a low calculated PSADT value (denoted PSADT ^ ) is predictive of metastasis and premature death from prostate cancer. Unfortunately, none of these papers have adjusted for the measurement error in PSADT ^ , an estimator that is typically computed using the popular Memorial Sloan Kettering website very often visited by both physicians and their patients. For this website, the estimator PSADT ^ of the true (but unknown) PSADT for a patient (denoted PSADT∗) is computed as the natural log of 2 (i.e., 0.6931) divided by the estimated slope of the straight-line regression of the natural log of PSA (in ng/mL) on time. We utilize PSADT ^ to derive an expression for the probability that the unknown PSADT∗ for a patient is below a specified value C (> 0 ) of concern to both the physician and the patient. This probability is easy to interpret and takes into account the fact that PSADT ^ is a statistical estimator with variability. This variability introduces measurement error, namely, the difference between a computed value PSADT ^ and the true, but unknown, value PSADT∗. We have developed an Excel calculator that, once the [time, ln(PSA)] values are entered, outputs both the value of PSADT ^ and the desired probability. In addition, we discuss problematic statistical issues attendant with PSADT∗ estimation typically based on at most three or four PSA values. We strongly recommend the use of this probability when physicians are discussing PSADT ^ values and associated treatment options with their patients. And, we stress that future epidemiology research projects involving PSA doubling time should take into account the measurement error problem highlighted in this Commentary.

Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer Prognosis: Implications for Active Surveillance

Available evidence supports routine implementation of germline genetic testing for many aspects of prostate cancer (PCa) decision making. The purpose of obtaining genetic testing for newly diagnosed men would be focused on identifying mutations that predispose to aggressive PCa. Based on an evidence-based review, the authors review germline rare pathogenic mutations in several genes that are significantly associated with aggressiveness, metastases, and mortality. Then recent studies of these germline mutations in predicting tumor grade reclassification among patients undergoing active surveillance are discussed. Single nucleotide polymorphisms-based polygenic risk scores in differentiating PCa aggressiveness and prognosis are reviewed.

Options for Curative Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most frequently occurring malignancy among men in Germany, with 60 000 new cases each year. Three of every four tumors are detected at an early, localized stage, when various curative treatment strategies are possible.

METHODS

A selective search of the literature in PubMed accompanied by consideration of guidelines from Germany and other countries.

RESULTS

Owing to the usually prolonged natural course of localized prostate cancer, local treatment is recommended for patients with a life expectancy of at least 10 years. The established treatments with curative intent are radical prostatectomy, percutaneous radiotherapy, and brachytherapy, with active surveillance as a further option for patients with low-risk disease. The eventual choice of treatment is determined by tumor stage, risk group, comorbidities, and patient preference. Conversations with the patient must cover not only the oncological outcome but also the potential adverse effects of the different treatment options. Depending on the procedure, urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and inflammation of the bladder and/or rectum may be frequently occurring complications.

CONCLUSION

A number of curative and other treatments are available for patients with localized prostate cancer. The goal is to identify the appropriate option for each individual patient by means of detailed discussion.

Update on Multiparametric Prostate MRI During Active Surveillance: Current and Future Trends and Role of the PRECISE Recommendations

Active surveillance for low-to-intermediate risk prostate cancer is a conservative management approach that aims to avoid or delay active treatment until there is evidence of disease progression. In recent years, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has been increasingly used in active surveillance and has shown great promise in patient selection and monitoring. This has been corroborated by publication of the Prostate Cancer Radiologic Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations, which define the ideal reporting standards for mpMRI during active surveillance. The PRECISE recommendations include a system that assigns a score from 1 to 5 (the PRECISE score) for the assessment of radiologic change on serial mpMRI scans. PRECISE scores are defined as follows: a score of 3 indicates radiologic stability, a score of 1 or 2 denotes radiologic regression, and a score of 4 or 5 indicates radiologic progression. In the present study, we discuss current and future trends in the use of mpMRI during active surveillance and illustrate the natural history of prostate cancer on serial scans according to the PRECISE recommendations. We highlight how the ability to classify radiologic change on mpMRI with use of the PRECISE recommendations helps clinical decision making.

A Narrative Overview of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

-Active surveillance (AS) is a strategy employed as an alternative to immediate standard active treatments for patients with low-risk localised prostate cancer (PCa). Active treatments such as radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy are associated with significant adverse effects which impair quality of life. The majority of patients with low-risk PCa undergo a slow and predictable course of cancer growth and do not require immediate curative treatment. AS provides a means to identify and monitor patients with low-risk PCa through regular PSA testing, imaging using MRI scans and regular repeat prostate biopsies. These measures enable the identification of progression, or increase in cancer extent or aggressiveness, which necessitates curative treatment. Alternatively, some patients may choose to leave AS to pursue curative interventions due to anxiety. The main benefit of AS is the avoidance of unnecessary radical treatments for patients at the early stages of the disease, hence avoiding over-treatment, whilst identifying those at risk of progression to be treated actively. The objective of this article is to provide a narrative summary of contemporary practice regarding AS based on a review of the available evidence base and clinical practice guidelines. Elements of discussion include the clinical effectiveness and harms of AS, what AS involves for healthcare professionals, and patient perspectives. The pitfalls and challenges for healthcare professionals are also discussed.

DATA SOURCES

We consulted international guidelines, collaborative studies and seminal prospective studies on AS in the management of clinically localised PCa.

CONCLUSION

AS is a feasible alternative to radical treatment options for low-risk PCa, primarily as a means of avoiding over-treatment, whilst identifying those who are at risk of disease progression for active treatment. There is emerging data demonstrating the long-term safety of AS as an oncological management strategy. Uncertainties remain regarding variation in definitions, criteria, thresholds and the most effective types of diagnostic interventions pertaining to patient selection, monitoring and reclassification. Efforts have been made to standardise the practice and conduct of AS. As data from high-quality prospective comparative studies mature, the practice of AS will continue to evolve.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The practice of AS involves a multi-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals consisting of nurses, urologists, oncologists, pathologists and radiologists. Nurses play a prominent role in managing AS programmes, and are closely involved in patient selection and recruitment, counselling, organising and administering diagnostic interventions including prostate biopsies, and ensuring patients' needs are being met throughout the duration of AS.

Contemporary approach to active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer

The approach to favorable risk prostate cancer known as “active surveillance” was first described explicitly in 2002. This was a report of 250 patients managed with a strategy of expectant management, with serial prostate-specific antigen and periodic biopsy, and radical intervention advised for patients who were re-classified as higher risk. This was initiated as a prospective clinical trial, complete with informed consent, beginning in 2007. Thus, there are now 20 years of experience with this approach, which has become widely adopted around the world. In this chapter, we will summarize the biological basis for active surveillance, review the experience to date of the Toronto and Hopkins groups which have reported 15-year outcomes, describe the current approach to active surveillance in patients with Gleason score 3 + 3 or selected patients with Gleason score 3 + 4 with a low percentage of Gleason pattern 4 who may also be candidates, enhanced by the use of magnetic resonance imaging, and forecast future directions.

Low-risk prostate cancer selected for active surveillance with negative MRI at entry: can repeat biopsies at 1 year be avoided? A pilot study

PURPOSE

In patients considered for active surveillance (AS), the use of MRI and targeted biopsies (TB) at entry challenges the approach of routine "per protocol" repeat systematic biopsies (SB) at 1 year. This pilot study aimed to assess whether an approach of performing repeat biopsies only if PSA kinetics are abnormal would be safe and sufficient to detect progression.

METHODS

Prospective single-centre study of 149 patients on AS with low-risk PCa, a negative MRI at entry, followed for a minimum of 12 months between 01/2007 and 12/2015. Group 1 (n = 78) patients had per-protocol 12-month repeat SB; group 2 (n = 71) patients did not. Surveillance tests for tumour progression were for both groups: for cause SB and MRI-TB biopsies if PSA velocity (PSA-V) > 0.75 ng/ml/year, or PSA doubling time (PSADT) < 3 years. The main objectives are to compare the 2-year rates of tumour progression and AS discontinuation between groups. The secondary objectives are to estimate the diagnostic power of PSA-V and PSA-DT, to predict the risk of tumour progression.

RESULTS

Overall, 21 out of 149 patients (14.1%) showed tumour progression, 17.1% for group 1 and 12.3% for group 2, and 31 (21.2%) discontinued AS at 2 years. There was no difference between the 2 groups (p = 0.56). The area under the PSA-V and PSADT curves to predict tumour progression was 0.92 and 0.83, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any significant difference for progression and AS discontinuation rate between the 2 groups. The PSA kinetic seems accurate as a marker of tumour progression. These results support the conduct of a multi-centre prospective trial to confirm these findings.

Oncologic Outcomes of Definitive Treatments for Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer After a Period of Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND

To compare oncologic outcomes of different definitive treatment (DT) modalities in a cohort of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) after active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

We identified 237 patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosed from 1990 to 2012 who did not undergo immediate DT within 12 months of diagnosis (ie, AS patients as well as watchful waiting and those refusing DT). Charts were examined for clinical/pathologic data and type of DT: surgery (RP), radiation including brachytherapy (XRT), cryotherapy, and androgen deprivation therapy monotherapy (ADT). The impact of DT on oncologic outcomes of biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastasis, disease-specific (DSS), and overall survival (OS) was examined with the Cox proportional hazards model, along with the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test.

RESULTS

After median time on AS of 63.4 months, 40% of patients underwent DT: 47% XRT, 28% RP, 14% ADT, and 11% cryotherapy. On multivariable analysis, the use of XRT predicted higher BCR (hazard ratio [HR] 6.1, P = .001) and worse overall mortality (HR 2.1, P = .03) compared with other treatments, controlling for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), stage, Gleason score, and NCCN risk category. Median follow-up was 71.7 months. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, 10-year OS was superior for RP versus XRT among patients with prostatic specific antigen (PSA) velocity >2.0 ng/mL/y.

CONCLUSIONS

Low- and intermediate-risk patients with PCa who progress to DT after AS may be inadequately treated with radiation therapy compared with other DT modalities, especially when pretreatment PSA velocity is > 2 ng/mL/y.

Pretreatment prostate specific antigen doubling time as prognostic factor in prostate cancer patients

Despite the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) serum level commonly uses as tumor marker in diagnosis of prostate cancer, it seems that PSA doubling time (PSADT) could be more useful indicator of tumor behavior and of prognosis for patients. The results of hormone and radiation therapy were evaluated for 912 prostate cancer having at least 2 PSA tests before the treatment was started. Clustering procedure (selection of homogenous group) was performed by using PSADT as the classification marker. The rate of PSADT was estimated for different dissemination rate, age, Gleasons's score and education level. PSADT index inversely correlated with the rate of prostate cancer dissemination, Gleason's score and the level of education were directly correlated with the age of patients. Survival time was longer and PSADT index was higher in “slow” tumor growing subgroups in local, local-advanced and metastatic prostate cancer patients than these in “fast” subgroups. The study confirmed the prognostic value of pretreatment PSADT in prostate cancer patients independently of cancer progression. No significant relationship exists between the authors and the companies/organizations whose products or services may be referenced in this article.

Integration of multiparametric MRI into active surveillance of prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous cancer in men though many men will not die of this disease and may not require definitive treatment. Active surveillance (AS) is an increasingly utilized potential solution to the issue of overtreatment of prostate cancer. Traditionally, prostate cancer patients have been stratified into risk groups based on clinical stage on digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen and biopsy Gleason score, though each of these variables has significant limitations. This review will discuss the potential role for prostate multiparametric MRI and targeted biopsy techniques incorporating MRI in the selection of candidates for AS, monitoring patients on AS and as triggers for definitive treatment.

Extreme Gleason Upgrading From Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy: A Population-based Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the risk factors associated with the odds of extreme Gleason upgrading at radical prostatectomy (RP) (defined as a Gleason prognostic group score increase of ≥2), we utilized a large, population-based cancer registry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiologic, and End Results database was queried (2010-2011) for all patients diagnosed with Gleason 3 + 3 or 3 + 4 on prostate needle biopsy. Available clinicopathologic factors and the odds of upgrading and extreme upgrading at RP were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 12,459 patients were identified, with a median age of 61 (interquartile range: 56-65) and a diagnostic prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 5.5 ng/mL (interquartile range: 4.3-7.5). Upgrading was observed in 34% of men, including 44% of 7402 patients with Gleason 3 + 3 and 19% of 5057 patients with Gleason 3 + 4 disease. Age, clinical stage, diagnostic PSA, and % prostate needle biopsy cores positive were independently associated with odds of any upgrading at RP. In baseline Gleason 3 + 3 disease, extreme upgrading was observed in 6%, with increasing age, diagnostic PSA, and >50% core positivity associated with increased odds. In baseline Gleason 3 + 4 disease, extreme upgrading was observed in 4%, with diagnostic PSA and palpable disease remaining predictive. Positive surgical margins were significantly higher in patients with extreme upgrading at RP (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Gleason upgrading at RP is common in this large population-based cohort, including extreme upgrading in a clinically significant portion.

Acknowledging unreported problems with active surveillance for prostate cancer: a prospective single-centre observational study

OBJECTIVE

To report outcomes of patients with localised prostate cancer (PCa) managed with active surveillance (AS) in a standard clinical setting.

DESIGN

Single-centre, prospective, observational study.

SETTING

Non-academic, average-size hospital in Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

Prospective, observational study at a non-academic, average-size hospital in Switzerland. Inclusion and progression criteria meet general recommendations. 157 patients at a median age of 67 (61-70) years were included from December 1999 to March 2012. Follow-up (FU) ended June 2013.

RESULTS

Median FU was 48 (30-84) months. Overall confirmed reclassification rate was 20% (32/157). 20 men underwent radical prostatectomy with 1 recurrence, 11 had radiation therapy with 2 prostate-specific antigen relapses, and 1 required primary hormone ablation with a fatal outcome. Kaplan-Meier estimates for those remaining in the study showed an overall survival of 92%, cancer-specific survival of 99% and reclassification rate of 41%. Dropout rate was 36% and occurred at a median of 48 (21-81) months after inclusion. 68 (43%) men are still under AS.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful administration of AS can and will yield excellent results in long-term management of PCa, and also helps physicians and patients alike to balance quality of life and mortality. Our data revealed significant dropout from FU. Patient non-compliance can be a relevant problem in AS.

Biomarkers for prostate cancer: present challenges and future opportunities

Prostate cancer (PCa) has variable biological potential with multiple treatment options. A more personalized approach, therefore, is needed to better define men at higher risk of developing PCa, discriminate indolent from aggressive disease and improve risk stratification after treatment by predicting the likelihood of progression. This may improve clinical decision-making regarding management, improve selection for active surveillance protocols and minimize morbidity from treatment. Discovery of new biomarkers associated with prostate carcinogenesis present an opportunity to provide patients with novel genetic signatures to better understand their risk of developing PCa and help forecast their clinical course. In this review, we examine the current literature evaluating biomarkers in PCa. We also address current limitations and present several ideas for future studies.

Expectant management for men with early stage prostate cancer

Since the dissemination of prostate-specific antigen screening, most men with prostate cancer are now diagnosed with localized, low-risk prostate cancer that is unlikely to be lethal. Nevertheless, nearly all of these men undergo primary treatment with surgery or radiation, placing them at risk for longstanding side effects, including erectile dysfunction and impaired urinary function. Active surveillance and other observational strategies (ie, expectant management) have produced excellent long-term disease-specific survival and minimal morbidity for men with prostate cancer. Despite this, expectant management remains underused for men with localized prostate cancer. In this review, various approaches to the expectant management of men with prostate cancer are summarized, including watchful waiting and active surveillance strategies. Contemporary cancer-specific and health care quality-of-life outcomes are described for each of these approaches. Finally, contemporary patterns of use, potential disparities in care, and ongoing research and controversies surrounding expectant management of men with localized prostate cancer are discussed.

Criteria used for the active surveillance of localised prostate cancer in the UK

Introduction:

Active surveillance (AS) is a valid option for localised prostate cancer and should be offered to patients who are suitable for radical treatment in conjunction with current NICE guidelines. The aim of this study was to evaluate the consensus on AS selection and follow-up criteria in the United Kingdom (UK).

Method:

An electronic survey (Appendix 1) was emailed to 500 British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) members to determine their local criteria for active surveillance in prostate cancer.

Results:

Of the 134 (26.8%) BAUS members who responded, PSA ≤ 10 ng/ml, Gleason score ≤ 6 and clinical stage ≤ T1c were the preferred selection criteria used in the UK. However, only 51.5% will perform MRI for disease staging. Most urologists (65.6%) preferred three-monthly PSA follow-up visits for the first year then six-monthly thereafter. A digital rectal examination (DRE) is not performed by 57.1%. Increased Gleason score and PSA doubling time were the two main criteria that would trigger intervention.

Conclusion:

There is a lack of consensus on criteria used for selection, follow-up and repeat biopsy for prostate cancer patients on active surveillance in the UK.

Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Active surveillance is increasingly accepted as a treatment option for favorable-risk prostate cancer. Long-term follow-up has been lacking. In this study, we report the long-term outcome of a large active surveillance protocol in men with favorable-risk prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a prospective single-arm cohort study carried out at a single academic health sciences center, 993 men with favorable- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were managed with an initial expectant approach. Intervention was offered for a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of less than 3 years, Gleason score progression, or unequivocal clinical progression. Main outcome measures were overall and disease-specific survival, rate of treatment, and PSA failure rate in the treated patients.

RESULTS

Among the 819 survivors, the median follow-up time from the first biopsy is 6.4 years (range, 0.2 to 19.8 years). One hundred forty-nine (15%) of 993 patients died, and 844 patients are alive (censored rate, 85.0%). There were 15 deaths (1.5%) from prostate cancer. The 10- and 15-year actuarial cause-specific survival rates were 98.1% and 94.3%, respectively. An additional 13 patients (1.3%) developed metastatic disease and are alive with confirmed metastases (n = 9) or have died of other causes (n = 4). At 5, 10, and 15 years, 75.7%, 63.5%, and 55.0% of patients remained untreated and on surveillance. The cumulative hazard ratio for nonprostate-to-prostate cancer mortality was 9.2:1.

CONCLUSION

Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer is feasible and seems safe in the 15-year time frame. In our cohort, 2.8% of patients have developed metastatic disease, and 1.5% have died of prostate cancer. This mortality rate is consistent with expected mortality in favorable-risk patients managed with initial definitive intervention.

Circulating biomarkers for discriminating indolent from aggressive disease in prostate cancer active surveillance

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review research on the use of circulating biomarkers to predict unfavorable tumor pathology in the setting of active surveillance, or in clinical contexts that are informative for active surveillance, such as men with low-risk prostate cancer evaluated for upgrading or upstaging at surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Biomarkers have been evaluated in serum, plasma, urine, and expressed prostatic secretions. Only a small number of biomarkers have been evaluated in multiple studies: %free prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA velocity, PSA doubling time, proPSA, PCA3, TMPRSS2-ERG. Single studies with relevance to active surveillance have evaluated microRNAs, circulating tumor cells, and exosomes. The most consistent significant associations with unfavorable tumor pathology have been with %free PSA. Associations with [-2]proPSA and Prostate Health Index have also been consistent; however, three of four studies come from the same active surveillance patient cohort.

SUMMARY

Circulating biomarkers represent a promising approach to identify men with apparently low-risk biopsy pathology, but who harbor potentially aggressive tumors unsuitable for active surveillance. Research is still at an early stage; existing biomarkers need rigorous validation with consistent methodology, and additional biomarkers need to be evaluated. Successful clinical translation would reduce the frequency of surveillance biopsies, and may enhance acceptance of active surveillance.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification

CONTEXT

Active surveillance (AS) is an important strategy to reduce prostate cancer overtreatment. However, the optimal criteria for eligibility and predictors of progression while on AS are debated.

OBJECTIVE

To review primary data on markers, genetic factors, and risk stratification for patient selection and predictors of progression during AS.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to April 2014 for original articles on biomarkers and risk stratification for AS.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Patient factors associated with AS outcomes in some studies include age, race, and family history. Multiple studies provide consistent evidence that a lower percentage of free prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a higher Prostate Health Index (PHI), a higher PSA density (PSAD), and greater biopsy core involvement at baseline predict a greater risk of progression. During follow-up, serial measurements of PHI and PSAD, as well as repeat biopsy results, predict later biopsy progression. While some studies have suggested a univariate relationship between urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and transmembrane protease, serine 2-v-ets avian erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog gene fusion (TMPRSS2:ERG) with adverse biopsy features, these markers have not been consistently shown to independently predict AS outcomes. No conclusive data support the use of genetic tests in AS. Limitations of these studies include heterogeneous definitions of progression and limited follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a growing body of literature on patient characteristics, biopsy features, and biomarkers with potential utility in AS. More data are needed on practical applications such as combining these tests into multivariable clinical algorithms and long-term outcomes to further improve AS in the future.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Several PSA-based tests (free PSA, PHI, PSAD) and the extent of cancer on biopsy can help to stratify the risk of progression during active surveillance. Investigation of several other markers is under way.

The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, the New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation

CONTEXT

Prostate cancer remains a significant public health problem. Recent publications of randomized trials and the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations have drawn attention to overtreatment of localized, low-risk prostate cancer. Active surveillance, in which patients undergo regular visits with serum prostate-specific antigen tests and repeat prostate biopsies, rather than aggressive treatment with curative intent, may address overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer. It is apparent that a greater awareness of the critical role of pathologists in determining eligibility for active surveillance is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To review the state of current knowledge about the role of active surveillance in the management of prostate cancer and to provide a multidisciplinary report focusing on pathologic parameters important to the successful identification of patients likely to succeed with active surveillance, to determine the role of molecular tests in increasing the safety of active surveillance, and to provide future directions.

DESIGN

Systematic review of literature on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, pathologic parameters important for appropriate stratification, and issues regarding interobserver reproducibility. Expert panels were created to delineate the fundamental questions confronting the clinical and pathologic aspects of management of men on active surveillance.

RESULTS

Expert panelists identified pathologic parameters important for management and the related diagnostic and reporting issues. Consensus recommendations were generated where appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

Active surveillance is an important management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Vital to this process is the critical role pathologic parameters have in identifying appropriate candidates for active surveillance. These findings need to be reproducible and consistently reported by surgical pathologists with accurate pathology reporting.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management and diagnosis of prostate cancer: current applications and strategies

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become increasingly used worldwide in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. With advances in multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) technology, such as the use of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging sequences, observational studies have evaluated the utility for mpMRI in the continuum of prostate cancer management, from improving the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, to planning radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy and the early detection of local recurrence. Furthermore, the potential for advanced imaging to reduce the burden of routine serial prostate needle biopsies for men on active surveillance is a promising area of research. MRI technology continues to evolve, and the potential applications in the management of prostate cancer care will require well-designed multi-institutional prospective clinical trials and rigorous efforts to standardize reporting and improve dissemination of expertise across institutions.

Implementation of PSA-based active surveillance in prostate cancer

Prostate cancer screening had led to the diagnosis of a large proportion of localized and low-risk disease. Many of these cancer cases are believed to be indolent and would not be clinically perceived in the absence of screening. In addition to that, the wide use of active treatment has exposed these patients to treatment-related quality-of-life impact. In this setting active surveillance as a way of deferring active treatment and reserving such treatment to cases of disease progression only has gained interest. PSA has been widely used to identify patients eligible for active surveillance and also for disease monitoring. The goal of this review was to describe the place of PSA in the monitoring of patients under active surveillance based on the existing studies and to discuss the importance of PSA in light of other existing or emerging tools to monitor prostate cancer in active surveillance.

Management of low risk prostate cancer-active surveillance and focal therapy

Low-risk prostate cancer, defined as Gleason Score 6 or less with PSA <10 ng/ml, is diagnosed in about half of men undergoing screening. Approximately 30% of men diagnosed with low-risk disease harbour high-grade cancer that is unrepresented on the biopsy. Moreover, a small percentage of low-grade cancers have molecular alterations that result in progression to aggressive disease. Favourable-risk prostate cancer should be managed with close follow up. Active surveillance is appropriate for most patients with low-risk disease, and radical treatment should be reserved for cases in which higher-risk disease is identified. In turn, focal therapy aims to preserve tissue and function in men who have been diagnosed with localized disease, and should be offered to men with higher risk disease at baseline, as an alternative to whole-gland radiation or surgery, or when the patient transitions from low-risk to higher-risk disease. The two strategies should be viewed as complementary elements of care that can be applied in a risk-stratified manner. In this Review, we discuss the rationale and current status of active surveillance-which constitutes a standard of care in most evidence-based guidelines-and comment on whether and when focal therapy should complement it in those men wishing to continue a tissue-preserving strategy.

The role of magnetic resonance imaging in delineating clinically significant prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging might improve the identification of patients with higher risk disease at diagnosis and thereby reduce the incidence of undergrading or understaging.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 115 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy. We used Epstein's criteria of insignificant disease with and without a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameter (apparent diffusion coefficient) to calculate sensitivity, specificity, as well as negative and positive predictive values [NPV and PPV] across varying definitions of clinically significant cancer based on Gleason grade and tumor volume (0.2 mL, 0.5 mL, and 1.3 mL) on whole-mount prostate specimens. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the incremental benefit of MRI in delineating significant cancer.

RESULTS

The majority had a prostate-specific antigen from 4.1-10.0 (67%), normal rectal examinations (90%), biopsy Gleason score ≤ 6 (68%), and ≤ 2 cores positive (55%). Of the 58 patients pathologically staged with Gleason 7 or pT3 disease at prostatectomy, Epstein's criteria alone missed 12 patients (sensitivity of 79% and NPV of 68%). Addition of apparent diffusion coefficient improved the sensitivity and NPV for predicting significant disease at prostatectomy to 93% and 84%, respectively. MRI improved detection of large Gleason 6 (≥ 1.3 mL, P = .006) or Gleason ≥ 7 lesions of any size (P <.001).

CONCLUSION

Integration of MRI with existing clinical staging criteria helps identify patients with significant cancer. Clinicians should consider utilizing MRI in the decision-making process.

Management of men with a suspicion of prostate cancer after negative initial prostate biopsy results

INTRODUCTION

For men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA), appropriate management after negative prostate biopsy remains controversial. After determining PSA kinetics, subsequent follow-up was considered.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 115 cases with negative repeat biopsy were followed by evaluating PSA kinetics and ratio of percent free PSA (F/T) and by performing second repeat biopsy.

RESULTS

Eighteen cancer cases were diagnosed. Shorter PSA doubling times and faster velocities were found in cancer cases compared with cases without cancer. We observed a clear decrease in F/T among cancer cases.

CONCLUSIONS

To avoid unnecessary repeat biopsies, cases with a suspicion of cancer after negative biopsy can be divided into two groups: one that requires additional biopsies and one with an average change in PSA of <1 ng/ml/year and no change in F/T, which is recommended for surveillance as stable disease without biopsy over a specified time period.

Active surveillance: patient selection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This is a summary of the current approach to patient selection for active surveillance, including eligibility criteria, current controversies and the role of imaging.

RECENT FINDINGS

Active surveillance is based on the concept that Gleason 6 prostate cancer is, in most cases, an indolent condition that poses little or no threat to the patient's life. Substantial recent data suggest that Gleason pattern 3 does not have the molecular characteristics of malignancy. A subset of patients harbour more aggressive disease that was missed on the initial diagnostic biopsies, and a smaller group will progress over time to higher grade disease. Active surveillance involves initial expectant management for patients with favourable risk disease, and serial biopsy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Most patients with Gleason 6 prostate cancer are candidates. Very low risk patients fulfil the Epstein criteria, with only one or two positive cores, no core with more than 50% involvement and a PSA density of less than 0.15. Low-risk patients have Gleason 6 disease and PSA 10 or less but do not satisfy the Epstein criteria. Higher volume of Gleason 6 disease on biopsy predicts for a higher likelihood of higher grade cancer, but in and of itself should not mandate treatment. Patients with Gleason 7 in whom the extent of Gleason 4 pattern is less than 10% may also be candidates. Patient age, comorbidity and personal preferences must also be considered.

SUMMARY

Active surveillance is an effective and well tolerated method to reduce the overtreatment associated with screen-detected prostate cancer. About 50% of newly diagnosed patients are eligible for this approach. Multiple factors, including patient age, comorbidity, cancer risk category and patient preferences, must be considered.

Active surveillance: the Canadian experience with an "inclusive approach"

Active surveillance has evolved to become a standard of care for favorable-risk prostate cancer. This is a summary of the rationale, method, and results of active surveillance beginning in 1995 with the first prospective trial of this approach. This was a prospective, single-arm cohort study. Patients were managed with an initial expectant approach. Definitive intervention was offered to those patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of less than 3 years, Gleason score progression (to 4+3 or greater), or unequivocal clinical progression. Survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard model were applied to the data. Since November 1995, 450 patients have been managed with active surveillance. The cohort included men under 70 with favorable-risk disease and men of age more than 70 with favorable- or intermediate-risk cancer (Gleason score 3+4 or PSA 10-15). Median follow-up is 6.8 years (range 1-16 years). Overall survival is 78.6%. Ten-year prostate cancer actuarial survival is 97.2%. Five of 450 patients (1.1%) have died of prostate cancer. Thirty percent of patients have been reclassified as higher-risk patients and offered definitive therapy. The commonest indication for treatment was a PSA doubling time less than 3 years (48%) or Gleason upgrading (26%). Of 117 patients treated radically, the PSA failure rate was 50%. This represents 13% of the total cohort. Most PSA failures occurred early; at 2 years, 44% of the treated patients had PSA failure. The hazard ratio for non-prostate cancer mortality to prostate cancer mortality was 18.6 at 10 years. In conclusion, we observed a very low rate of prostate cancer mortality in an intermediate time frame. Among the one-third of patients who were reclassified as higher risk and retreated, PSA failure was relatively common. However, other-cause mortality accounted for almost all of the deaths. Further studies are warranted to improve the identification of patients who harbor more aggressive disease in spite of favorable clinical parameters at diagnosis [reproduced from Klotz (1) with permission from Wolters Kluwer Health].

Counterpoint: Prostate-specific antigen velocity is not of value for early detection of cancer

Firm evidence shows that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) velocity is statistically associated with many prostate cancer outcomes, including those related to early detection. However, the clinical use of a marker depends on clinical and statistical significance. Before PSA velocity is used to inform decisions such as whether to perform a biopsy, evidence should be clear that doing so would improve clinical outcome. A systematic review on PSA velocity found that almost no studies had evaluated whether PSA velocity aids in clinical decision-making. Since that time, several reports have indicated that including PSA in a statistical model alongside standard predictors (eg, PSA, digital rectal examination) does not improve predictive accuracy. Specifically, performing a biopsy on men with high PSA velocity in the absence of other indications, as recommended by the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Prostate Cancer Early Detection, would lead to many millions of unnecessary biopsies, without a corresponding number of aggressive cancers being detected. Advocates of PSA velocity have been reduced to citing a single article claiming that PSA velocity aids in clinical decision-making. The article involves selective reporting of an unusual subgroup analysis based on an extremely limited number of events. This is not to say that, in clinical practice, urologists should ignore prior PSA values: clinical judgment can be aided by careful longitudinal evaluation of PSA changes, interpreted in the context of symptoms and treatments. However, the literature clearly shows that simplistic application of PSA velocity cutoffs is not of value for early detection of prostate cancer.

Screening for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Any form of screening aims to reduce disease-specific and overall mortality, and to improve a person's future quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical and broader community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. To better inform individual patient decision-making and health policy decisions, we need to consider the entire body of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on prostate cancer screening summarised in a systematic review. In 2006, our Cochrane review identified insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of routine mass, selective, or opportunistic screening for prostate cancer. An update of the review in 2010 included three additional trials. Meta-analysis of the five studies included in the 2010 review concluded that screening did not significantly reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality. In the past two years, several updates to studies included in the 2010 review have been published thereby providing the rationale for this update of the 2010 systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality or all-cause mortality and to assess its impact on quality of life and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

An updated search of electronic databases (PROSTATE register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT, and the NHS EED) was performed, in addition to handsearching of specific journals and bibliographies, in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of screening versus no screening for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The original search (2006) identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full-text review. From these citations, two RCTs were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. The search for the 2010 version of the review identified a further 106 potentially relevant articles, from which three new RCTs were included in the review. A total of 31 articles were retrieved for full-text examination based on the updated search in 2012. Updated data on three studies were included in this review. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs with a total of 341,342 participants were included in this review. All involved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, with or without digital rectal examination (DRE), though the interval and threshold for further evaluation varied across trials. The age of participants ranged from 45 to 80 years and duration of follow-up from 7 to 20 years. Our meta-analysis of the five included studies indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between men randomised to the screening and control groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.17). The methodological quality of three of the studies was assessed as posing a high risk of bias. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial were assessed as posing a low risk of bias, but provided contradicting results. The ERSPC study reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95), whilst the PLCO study concluded no significant benefit (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.54). The ERSPC was the only study of the five included in this review that reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality, in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years of age. Sensitivity analysis for overall risk of bias indicated no significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality when referring to the meta analysis of only the ERSPC and PLCO trial data (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30). Subgroup analyses indicated that prostate cancer-specific mortality was not affected by the age at which participants were screened. Meta-analysis of four studies investigating all-cause mortality did not determine any significant differences between men randomised to screening or control (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.03). A diagnosis of prostate cancer was significantly greater in men randomised to screening compared to those randomised to control (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.65). Localised prostate cancer was more commonly diagnosed in men randomised to screening (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.70), whilst the proportion of men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer was significantly lower in the screening group compared to the men serving as controls (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87). Screening resulted in a range of harms that can be considered minor to major in severity and duration. Common minor harms from screening include bleeding, bruising and short-term anxiety. Common major harms include overdiagnosis and overtreatment, including infection, blood loss requiring transfusion, pneumonia, erectile dysfunction, and incontinence. Harms of screening included false-positive results for the PSA test and overdiagnosis (up to 50% in the ERSPC study). Adverse events associated with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies included infection, bleeding and pain. No deaths were attributed to any biopsy procedure. None of the studies provided detailed assessment of the effect of screening on quality of life or provided a comprehensive assessment of resource utilization associated with screening (although preliminary analyses were reported).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer screening did not significantly decrease prostate cancer-specific mortality in a combined meta-analysis of five RCTs. Only one study (ERSPC) reported a 21% significant reduction of prostate cancer-specific mortality in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years. Pooled data currently demonstrates no significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific and overall mortality. Harms associated with PSA-based screening and subsequent diagnostic evaluations are frequent, and moderate in severity. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are common and are associated with treatment-related harms. Men should be informed of this and the demonstrated adverse effects when they are deciding whether or not to undertake screening for prostate cancer. Any reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality may take up to 10 years to accrue; therefore, men who have a life expectancy less than 10 to 15 years should be informed that screening for prostate cancer is unlikely to be beneficial. No studies examined the independent role of screening by DRE.

Preoperative predictors of pathologic stage T2a and pathologic Gleason score ≤ 6 in men with clinical low-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: reference for active surveillance

To assess preoperative parameters that may be predictive of pathologic stage T2a (pT2a) and pathologic Gleason score (pGS) ≤ 6 disease in low-risk prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance. A cohort of 1,495 men with low-risk prostate cancer between 1993 and 2009 was utilized. Preoperative assessment focused on patient age, race, diagnostic PSA level, clinical stage, diagnostic biopsy Gleason score, and prostate cancer laterality. Kaplan-Meier curves and a Cox regression model were used for analysis of PSA recurrence. Preoperative parameters were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression methods. Of 1,495 patients, 187 (12.5 %) were identified with pT2a and pGS ≤ 6 disease. Of the 187 men with pT2a and pGS ≤ 6 disease, only 6 (3.2 %) cases had PSA recurrence. Kaplan-Meier PSA recurrence-free survival curves identified a difference between prostate cancers with pT2a and pGS ≤ 6 and prostate cancers with >pT2a or pGS ≥ 7 disease (p = 0.002). Only biopsy tumor unilaterality (OR, 10.452; p ≤ 0.001) and low diagnostic PSA levels (OR, 0.887; p = 0.003) were independent predictors of prostate cancers with pT2a and pGS ≤ 6 disease on univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Biopsy tumor unilaterality and low diagnostic PSA levels are the independent predictors of pT2a and pGS ≤ 6 disease in low-risk prostate cancer patients. Unilateral cancer by prostate biopsy and low diagnostic PSA level may be the reference to improving the selection of appropriate candidates for active surveillance within a low-risk prostate cancer cohort.

Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer: background, patient selection, triggers for intervention, and outcomes

With the advent of increasingly sensitive and widely used diagnostic testing, cancer overdiagnosis in particular has emerged as a problem in multiple organ sites. This has the greatest ramifications in the case of prostate cancer because of the very high incidence of latent prostate cancer in aging men, the availability of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, and the long-term effects of definitive therapy. The condition of most men with favorable-risk prostate cancer is far removed from the consequences of a rampaging, aggressive disease. Most of these men are not destined to die of their disease, even in the absence of treatment. Unfortunately, most of these patients are treated radically and are exposed to the risk of significant side effects. Therefore, a selective approach to treatment is appealing. The concept is to identify the subset that harbor more aggressive disease early enough that curative therapy is still a possibility, thereby allowing the others to enjoy improved quality of life, free from the side effects of treatment. This review article summarizes the evidence supporting active surveillance, and the current approach to this management strategy, including the roles of serial biopsy, PSA kinetics, and MR imaging.

PSA Velocity and Doubling Time in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Prostate Cancer

Cancer is a growth process and it is natural that we should be concerned with how the routinely used marker of prostate cancer tumour burden - PSA - changes over time. Such change is measured by PSA velocity or PSA doubling time, described in general as "PSA kinetics". However, it turns out that calculation of PSA velocity and doubling time is far from straightforward. More than 20 different methods have been proposed, and many of these give quite divergent results. There is clear evidence that PSA kinetics are critical for understanding prognosis in advanced or relapsed prostate cancer. However, PSA kinetics have no value for men with an untreated prostate: neither PSA velocity nor doubling time have any role in diagnosing prostate cancer or providing a prognosis for men before treatment.

Comprehensive analysis of post-diagnostic prostate-specific antigen kinetics as predictor of a prostate cancer progression in active surveillance patients

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: A significant proportion of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer do not require immediate treatment and could be managed by active surveillance, which usually includes serial measurements of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and regular biopsies. The rate of rise in PSA levels, which could be calculated as PSA velocity or PSA doubling time, was previously suggested to be associated with the biological aggressiveness of prostate cancer. Although these parameters are obvious candidates for predicting tumour progression in active surveillance patients, earlier studies that examined this topic provided conflicting results. Our analysis showed that PSA velocity and PSA doubling time calculated at different time-points, by different methods, over different intervals, and in different sub-groups of active surveillance patients provide little if any prognostic information. Although we found some significant associations between PSA velocity and the risk of progression as determined by biopsy, the actual clinical significance of this association was small. Furthermore, PSA velocity did not add to the predictive accuracy of total PSA.

OBJECTIVE

To study whether prostate-specific antigen (PSA) velocity (PSAV) and PSA doubling time (PSADT) are associated with biopsy progression in patients managed by active surveillance.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Our inclusion criteria for active surveillance are biopsy Gleason sum <7, two or fewer positive biopsy cores, ≤20% tumour present in any core, and clinical stage T1-T2a. Changes in any of these parameters during the follow-up that went beyond these limits are considered to be progression. This study included 250 patients who had at least one surveillance biopsy, an available PSA measured no earlier than 3 months before diagnosis, and at least one PSA measurement before each surveillance biopsy. We evaluated the association between PSA kinetics and progression at successive surveillance biopsies in different sub-groups of patients by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) as well as sensitivity and specificity of different thresholds.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 3.0 years, the disease of 64 (26%) patients progressed. PSADT was not associated with biopsy progression, whereas PSAV was only weakly associated with progression in certain sub-groups. However, incorporation of PSAV in models including total PSA resulted in a moderate increase in AUC only when the entire cohort was analysed. In other sub-groups the predictive accuracy of total PSA was not significantly improved by adding PSAV.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirm that PSA kinetics should not be used in decision-making in patients with low-risk prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Regular surveillance biopsies should remain as the principal method of monitoring cancer progression in these men.

Low endoglin vascular density and Ki67 index in Gleason score 6 tumours may identify prostate cancer patients suitable for surveillance

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore whether vascular density and tumour cell proliferation are related to the risk of prostate cancer death in patients managed by watchful waiting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From a consecutive series of men diagnosed with prostate cancer at transurethral resection in 1975-1990, tissue microarrays (TMAs) were constructed. A majority of men had no metastases at diagnosis and were followed by watchful waiting (n = 295). The TMAs were stained for Ki67, endoglin and factor VIII-related antigen (vWf).

RESULTS

In univariate Cox analyses, increased Ki67 index, endoglin vascular density and vWf vascular density were associated with shorter cancer-specific survival. Ki67 index and endoglin vascular density added independent prognostic information to clinical stage, estimated tumour size and Gleason score (GS) in multivariate Cox analysis. In GS 6 tumours, high Ki67 index and high endoglin vascular density identified patients with poor outcome. After 15 years of follow-up not a single man out of 34 men with low staining for both markers (35% of all GS 6 tumours) had died of prostate cancer, in contrast to 15 prostate cancer deaths among the remaining 63 men with GS 6 tumours (65% cumulative risk of prostate cancer death). vWf vascular density in benign areas was a prognostic marker in GS 6 and 7 tumours.

CONCLUSIONS

Men with GS 6 tumours with both low Ki67 index and endoglin vascular density staining scores have a low risk of progression. Additional studies are needed to test whether these two markers can be applied to core biopsies to select patients suitable for surveillance.

Pathological stage distribution in patients treated with radical prostatectomy reflecting the need for protocol-based active surveillance: results from a contemporary European patient cohort

Study Type - Therapy (case series). Level of Evidence 4. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Low-risk prostate cancer is frequently diagnosed in the context of PSA screening or during a routine check-up. For those patients, to avoid possible overtreatment AS is an increasingly chosen treatment option. However, the concept of AS could possibly misclassify potentially dangerous PCa as a low-risk disease resulting in inferior cancer control outcomes. In the present study, we could demonstrate that the histopathological results of patients treated by RP in course of AS are significantly better if the selection criteria for AS are entirely fulfilled. Our findings underline the importance of a strict and precise admittance procedure for patients with early prostate cancer who are willing to undergo an AS programme.

OBJECTIVE

• To compare the histopathological outcomes of patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) after an initial active surveillance (AS) for localized, low-risk prostate cancers (PCa) among men who fulfilled the Epstein criteria at diagnosis with those who did not.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• In all, 283 patients with localized PCa were initially managed at our institution with AS. • In all, ≈ 50% originated from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) participants from Switzerland: 75 (26.5%) patients underwent treatment during follow-up and 61 were treated with RP (21.6%). • These patients were stratified into those who did (n= 39) vs those who did not (n= 22) entirely fulfil AS inclusion criteria according to Epstein et al. at PCa diagnosis.

RESULTS

• Patients who did completely fulfil the AS inclusion criteria had significantly lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-values (4.9 vs 7.8 ng/mL; P= 0.02), a significantly lower PSA density at diagnosis (0.09 vs 0.2 ng/mL/ccm; P= 0.007) and at RP, a higher proportion of organ-confined cancers (89.7% vs 59.1%, P= 0.02) and fewer positive surgical margins (25.6% vs 40.9%). • However, the rate of favourable histopathological outcome, defined as organ-confined disease with negative surgical margins, was statistically significantly higher in the group fulfilling AS criteria (69.2% vs 40.9%; P= 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

• In our AS series, 26.5% of the patients underwent definitive therapy. • Most patients treated with RP had organ-confined disease in the majority of cases, especially when the Epstein criteria were rigorously fulfilled at PCa diagnosis. • This underlines the importance of a strict and precise per protocol AS for patients with early PCa, otherwise there is a risk of missing more significant disease.