Modeling grade progression in an active surveillance study

Systematic Biopsy vs. Prostatectomy: Evaluating Correlations and Grading Discrepancies in Prostate Cancer

Background Prostate Cancer (PCa) represents a growing global health challenge. The main factor in predicting PCa prognosis is represented by the Gleason Score (GS) therefore, the accuracy of pathological features from preoperative biopsy is critical in the management of the patient. We aimed to investigate the correlation between prostate biopsy parameters and the prostatectomy specimen pathological features and to identify factors that lead to over- and under-grading tumors in biopsy samples. Materials and methods We performed a retrospective study that included 110 male patients with confirmed PCa, selected based on specific inclusion criteria. Biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens were analyzed using standard histopathological techniques, and pathological features were assessed according to the latest guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.0.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Results The study included 110 male patients with a median age of 67 years old, ranging from 48 to 79 years old. Correlations between biopsy parameters and RP outcomes were assessed and revealed several key findings. The tumoral length on biopsy was correlated with positive surgical margin (r=0.289, p<0.01) and with tumoral volume (r=0.526, p<0.001) on prostatectomy. Patients with higher grade groups (GG) on biopsy had an approximately four times higher chance of exhibiting extraprostatic extension. We demonstrated a significant correlation between Gleason Pattern 4 (%GP4) on biopsy and pT stage, with pT4 showing the highest %GP4, and a noticeable increase in %GP4 as the pT stage progressed from pT2b to pT4. The study found a significantly higher rate of undergrading at biopsy (30.90%) compared to overgrading (6.36%). Additionally, greater tumor length and higher tumor percentages in biopsies improved grading accuracy (p<0.001). Conclusion Our findings suggest that systemic biopsies play a key role in predicting pathological outcomes, especially through parameters that serve as key prognostic markers. However, due to the potential of the biopsy results to be under- or overgraded, urologists should take into consideration the advantages of using repeat biopsies or additional imaging techniques to achieve a more precise diagnosis and treatment strategy.

The CONFIRM trial protocol: the utility of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography in active surveillance for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

Primary objectives: To determine the additive value of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in the risk stratification of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa) who would have otherwise been deemed suitable for active surveillance (AS). Specifically, we aim to determine if PSMA PET/CT can detect a cohort of men on AS that are in fact high risk and likely to experience unfavourable outcomes should they remain on their current treatment pathway.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES

to determine the additive value of PSMA PET/CT to repeat multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate and explore whether a confirmatory biopsy may be avoided in men with a negative PSMA PET/CT and a negative repeat mpMRI of the prostate (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of <3). Furthermore, to develop a nomogram combining clinical, imaging and biomarker data to predict the likelihood of failure on AS in men with high-risk features. Also, a blood sample will be taken to perform a Prostate Health Index test at the time of confirmatory biopsy. Furthermore, a portion of this blood will be stored at a biobank for up to 5 years if a follow-up study on molecular biomarkers and genetic assays in this cohort of men is indicated, based on the results from the CONFIRM trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The CONFIRM trial is a prospective, multicentre, pre-test/post-test, cohort study across Victoria, Australia, involving men with newly diagnosed low-risk PCa with high-risk features, considered suitable for AS and undergoing confirmatory biopsy. The trial's goal is to provide high-quality evidence to establish whether PSMA PET/CT has a role in risk-stratifying men deemed suitable for AS despite having high-risk feature(s).

RESULTS

The CONFIRM trial will measure the proportion of men deemed unsuitable for ongoing AS based on pathological upgrading and multidisciplinary team recommendation due to PSMA PET/CT scan and PSMA-targeted confirmatory biopsy. Additionally, the positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity of PSMA PET/CT will be calculated in isolation and combined with repeat mpMRI of the prostate.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial will provide robust prospective data to determine if PSMA-PET/CT and standard of care (prostate biopsy ± repeat mpMRI) can improve diagnostic certainty in men undergoing confirmatory biopsy for low-grade PCa with high-risk features.

Grade Group accuracy is improved by extensive prostate biopsy sampling, but unrelated to prostatectomy specimen sampling or use of immunohistochemistry

Assessing the accurate Grade Group of a prostate needle biopsy specimen is essential for choosing the adequate therapeutic modality for prostate cancer patients. However, it is well-known that biopsy Grade Group tends to up- or downgrade significantly at radical prostatectomy. We aimed to investigate the correlation between accuracy and biopsy core number, performed immunohistochemical staining (IHC) or prostatectomy specimen sampling, with the latest also being correlated with higher detection rates of adverse pathological features, e.g., positive surgical margins, higher pathological stage or presence of perineural invasion (PnI status). The study cohort consisted of 315 consecutive patients diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma via transrectal ultrasound-guided needle biopsy who later underwent radical prostatectomy. We grouped and compared patients based on Grade Group accuracy, presence of IHC on biopsy, margin status, pathological stage, and PnI status. Inter-observer reproducibility was also calculated. Statistical analyzes included ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons post hoc test, Chi-squared test, and Fleiss kappa statistics. Undergraded cases harboured a significantly lower number of biopsy cores (p < 0.05), than accurately graded cases. Using IHC did not affect grading accuracy significantly, nor did the number of slides from prostatectomy specimens. The mean number of slides was virtually identical when margin status, pathological stage and PnI status of prostatectomy specimens were compared. Inter-observer reproducibility at our institute was calculated as fair (overall kappa = 0.29). Grade Group accuracy is significantly improved by obtaining more cores at biopsy but is unrelated to performed IHC. The extent of sampling prostatectomy specimens, however, did not affect accuracy and failed to significantly improve detection of adverse pathological features.

Advances in PARP Inhibitors for Prostate Cancer

Poly-adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase plays an essential role in cell function by regulating apoptosis, genomic stability and DNA repair. PARPi is a promising drug class that has gained significant traction in the last decade with good outcomes in different cancers. Several trials have sought to test its effectiveness in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We conducted a comprehensive literature review to evaluate the current role of PARPi in this setting. To this effect, we conducted queries in the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases. We reviewed and compared all major contemporary publications on the topic. In particular, recent phase II and III studies have also demonstrated the benefits of olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, talazoparib in CRPC. Drug effectiveness has been assessed through radiological progression or overall response. Given the notion of synthetic lethality and potential synergy with other oncological therapies, several trials are looking to integrate PARPi in combined therapies. There remains ongoing controversy on the need for genetic screening prior to treatment initiation as well as the optimal patient population, which would benefit most from PARPi. PARPi is an important asset in the oncological arsenal for mCRPC. New combinations with PARPi may improve outcomes in earlier phases of prostate cancer.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Contemporary Selection Criteria in Prostate Cancer Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Several active surveillance (AS) criteria have been established to screen insignificant prostate cancer (insigPCa, defined as organ confined, low grade and small volume tumors confirmed by postoperative pathology). However, their comparative diagnostic performance varies. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contemporary AS criteria and validate the absolute diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of optimal AS criteria.

Methods

First, we searched Pubmed and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contemporary AS criteria and obtained a relative ranking. Then, we searched Pubmed again to perform another meta-analysis to validate the absolute DOR of the top-ranked AS criteria derived from the NMA with two endpoints: insigPCa and favorable disease (defined as organ confined, low grade tumors). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were conducted to identify any potential heterogeneity in the results. Publication bias was evaluated.

Results

Seven eligible retrospective studies with 3,336 participants were identified for the NMA. The diagnostic accuracy of AS criteria ranked from best to worst, was as follows: Epstein Criteria (EC), Yonsei criteria, Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS), University of Miami (UM), University of California-San Francisco (UCSF), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), and University of Toronto (UT). I² = 50.5%, and sensitivity analysis with different insigPCa definitions supported the robustness of the results. In the subsequent meta-analysis of DOR of EC, insigPCa and favorable disease were identified as endpoints in ten and twenty-two studies, respectively. The pooled DOR for insigPCa and favorable disease were 0.44 (95%CI, 0.31–0.58) and 0.66 (95%CI, 0.61–0.71), respectively. According to a subgroup analysis, the DOR for favorable disease was significantly higher in US institutions than that in other regions. No significant heterogeneity or evidence of publication bias was identified.

Conclusions

Among the seven AS criteria evaluated in this study, EC was optimal for positively identifying insigPCa patients. The pooled diagnostic accuracy of EC was 0.44 for insigPCa and 0.66 when a more liberal endpoint, favorable disease, was used.

Systematic Review Registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], PROSPERO [CRD42020157048].

Prostate Cancer Patients Under Active Surveillance with a Suspicious Magnetic Resonance Imaging Finding Are at Increased Risk of Needing Treatment: Results of the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) Consortium

BACKGROUND

The inclusion criterion for active surveillance (AS) is low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The predictive value of the presence of a suspicious lesion at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the time of inclusion is insufficiently known.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the percentage of patients needing active treatment stratified by the presence or absence of a suspicious lesion at baseline MRI.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective analysis of the data from the multicentric AS GAP3 Consortium database was conducted. The inclusion criteria were men with grade group (GG) 1 or GG 2 prostate cancer combined with prostate-specific antigen <20 ng/ml. We selected a subgroup of patients who had MRI at baseline and for whom MRI results and targeted biopsies were used for AS eligibility. Suspicious MRI was defined as an MRI lesion with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)/Likert ≥3 and for which targeted biopsies did not exclude the patient for AS.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was treatment free survival (FS). The secondary outcomes were histological GG progression FS and continuation of AS (discontinuation FS).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The study cohort included 2119 patients (1035 men with nonsuspicious MRI and 1084 with suspicious MRI) with a median follow-up of 23 (12-43) mo. For the whole cohort, 3-yr treatment FS was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 69-74). For nonsuspicious MRI and suspicious MRI groups, 3-yr treatment FS rates were, respectively, 80% (95% CI: 77-83) and 63% (95% CI: 59-66). Active treatment (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.0, p < 0.001), grade progression (HR = 1.9, p < 0.001), and discontinuation of AS (HR = 1.7, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the suspicious MRI group than in the nonsuspicious MRI group.

CONCLUSIONS

The risks of switching to treatment, histological progression, and AS discontinuation are higher in cases of suspicious MRI at inclusion.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Among men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer who choose active surveillance, those with suspicious magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the time of inclusion in active surveillance are more likely to show switch to treatment than men with nonsuspicious MRI.

Active Surveillance Strategies for Low-Grade Prostate Cancer: Comparative Benefits and Cost-effectiveness

Background Active surveillance (AS) is the recommended treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Surveillance varies in MRI, frequency of follow-up, and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score that would repeat biopsy. Purpose To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of AS strategies for low-risk PC with versus without MRI. Materials and Methods This study developed a mathematical model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies in a simulation of men with a diagnosis of low-risk PC. The following strategies were compared: watchful waiting, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and annual biopsy without MRI, and PSA testing and MRI with varied PI-RADS thresholds for biopsy. MRI strategies differed regarding scheduling and use of PI-RADS score of at least 3, or a PI-RADS score of at least 4 to indicate the need for biopsy. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated by using microsimulation. Sensitivity analysis was used to assess the impact of varying parameter values on results. Results For the base case of 60-year-old men, all strategies incorporating prostate MRI extended QALYs and life-years compared with watchful waiting and non-MRI strategies. Annual MRI strategies yielded 16.19 QALYs, annual biopsy with no MRI yielded 16.14 QALYs, and watchful waiting yielded 15.94 QALYs. Annual MRI with PI-RADS score of at least 3 or of at least 4 as the biopsy threshold and annual MRI with biopsy even after MRI with negative findings offered similar QALYs and the same unadjusted life expectancy: 23.05 life-years. However, a PI-RADS score of at least 4 yielded 42% fewer lifetime biopsies. With a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY, annual MRI with biopsy for lesions with PI-RADS scores of 4 or greater was most cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $67 221 per QALY). Age, treatment type, risk of initial grade misclassification, and quality-of-life impact of procedural complications affected results. Conclusion The use of active surveillance (AS) with biopsy decisions guided by findings from annual MRI reduces the number of biopsies while preserving life expectancy and quality of life. Biopsy in lesions with PI-RADS scores of 4 or greater is likely the most cost-effective AS strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer who are younger than 70 years. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. An earlier incorrect version appeared online. This article was corrected on July 13, 2021.

What is the effect of MRI with targeted biopsies on the rate of patients discontinuing active surveillance? A reflection of the use of MRI in the PRIAS study

BACKGROUND

The reduction of overtreatment by active surveillance (AS) is limited in patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to high rates of patients switching to radical treatment. MRI improves biopsy accuracy and could therewith affect inclusion in or continuation of AS. We aim to assess the effect of MRI with target biopsies on the total rate of patients discontinuing AS, and in particular discontinuation due to Grade Group (GG) reclassification.

METHODS

Three subpopulations included in the prospective PRIAS study with GG 1 were studied. Group A consists of patients diagnosed before 2009 without MRI before or during AS. Group B consists of patients diagnosed without MRI, but all patients underwent MRI within 6 months after diagnosis. Group C consists of patients who underwent MRI before diagnosis and during follow-up. We used cumulative incidence curves to estimate the rates of discontinuation.

RESULTS

In Group A (n = 500), the cumulative probability of discontinuing AS at 2 years is 27.5%; GG reclassification solely accounted for 6.9% of the discontinuation. In Group B (n = 351) these numbers are 30.9 and 22.8%, and for Group C (n = 435) 24.2 and 13.4%. The three groups were not randomized, however, baseline characteristics are highly comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing an MRI before starting AS reduces the cumulative probability of discontinuing AS at 2 years. Performing an MRI after already being on AS increases the cumulative probability of discontinuing AS in comparison to not performing an MRI, especially because of an increase in GG reclassification. These results suggest that the use of MRI could lead to more patients being considered unsuitable for AS. Considering the excellent long-term cancer-specific survival of AS before the MRI era, the increased diagnostic accuracy of MRI could potentially lead to more overtreatment if definitions and treatment options of significant PCa are not adapted.

Serial Molecular Profiling of Low-grade Prostate Cancer to Assess Tumor Upgrading: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The potential for low-grade (grade group 1 [GG1]) prostate cancer (PCa) to progress to high-grade disease remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To interrogate the molecular and biological features of low-grade PCa serially over time.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Nested longitudinal cohort study in an academic active surveillance (AS) program. Men were on AS for GG1 PCa from 2012 to 2017.

INTERVENTION

Electronic tracking and resampling of PCa using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

ERG immunohistochemistry (IHC) and targeted DNA/RNA next-generation sequencing were performed on initial and repeat biopsies. Tumor clonality was assessed. Molecular data were compared between men who upgraded and those who did not upgrade to GG ≥ 2 cancer.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Sixty-six men with median age 64 yr (interquartile range [IQR], 59-69) and prostate-specific antigen 4.9 ng/mL (IQR, 3.3-6.4) underwent repeat sampling of a tracked tumor focus (median interval, 11 mo; IQR, 6-13). IHC-based ERG fusion status was concordant at initial and repeat biopsies in 63 men (95% vs expected 50%, p <  0.001), and RNAseq-based fusion and isoform expression were concordant in nine of 13 (69%) ERG+ patients, supporting focal resampling. Among 15 men who upgraded with complete data at both time points, integrated DNA/RNAseq analysis provided evidence of shared clonality in at least five cases. Such cases could reflect initial undersampling, but also support the possibility of clonal temporal progression of low-grade cancer. Our assessment was limited by sample size and use of targeted sequencing.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat molecular assessment of low-grade tumors suggests that clonal progression could be one mechanism of upgrading. These data underscore the importance of serial tumor assessment in men pursuing AS of low-grade PCa.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We performed targeted rebiopsy and molecular testing of low-grade tumors on active surveillance. Our findings highlight the importance of periodic biopsy as a component of monitoring for cancer upgrading during surveillance.

Liproca Depot: A New Antiandrogen Treatment for Active Surveillance Patients

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in nonmorbid treatments for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer with fewer side effects than surgery or radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the tolerability, safety, and antitumor effects of the intraprostatic NanoZolid depot formulation Liproca Depot (LIDDS AB, Uppsala, Sweden) with antiandrogen 2-hydroxyflutamide (2-HOF) in men with low- or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer managed with active surveillance.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This clinical phase 2b trial, LPC-004, involved 61 patients. The 2-HOF-containing formulation Liproca Depot was injected transrectally into the prostate under ultrasound guidance. A single dose of 35% or 45% of the prostate volume (study part 1) and a fixed dose of 16 or 20 ml (study part 2) of the formulation were evaluated.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES

The primary endpoints were tolerability and the reduction in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 5 mo after injection. Antitumor effects were evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate biopsies. Quality of life was assessed using a validated questionnaire (International Prostate Symptom Score).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

All doses were safe and well tolerated, without hormonal side effects. In part 2 of the study, the PSA reduction was greatest for the group receiving 16 ml, with an average decrease of 14%, and 95% of patients had a PSA reduction. Some 78% of patients showed a prostate volume decrease compared to baseline. Prostate MRI and biopsies confirmed stable or reduced lesion size. However, post treatment biopsies were performed at the discretion of the investigator, and not routinely. Most patients were amenable to a second injection.

CONCLUSIONS

PSA and prostate volume decreased in most patients. Indications of efficacy were shown by post-treatment MRI and biopsies demonstrating stabilization or regression in the majority of cases.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Liproca Depot is a safe, minimally invasive treatment that offers the potential for cancer control in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Further clinical evaluation is warranted.

"More men die with prostate cancer than because of it" - an old adage that still holds true in the 21st century

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) incidence has risen due to PSA testing, making it the commonest male malignancy. Most PSA-detected cases are organ-confined. Whilst radical treatment has increased, there has been little change in PCa-specific mortality. Over-detection of clinically insignificant PCa and active surveillance are increasing. We compared studies from the 21st century versus earlier reports demonstrating how commonly PCa is incidentally detected at autopsy. We describe the ongoing increasing prevalence of PCa with age, along with features of autopsy-detected disease.

METHODS

A literature review of PubMed and Scopus was conducted using the search terms "prostate cancer or carcinoma", "latent" or "autopsy", to January 2019. Citations and references from all publications found in this search were manually reviewed to identify additional articles.

RESULTS

63 publications were identified between 1898 and 2017, reporting over 29,000 autopsies on subjects aged between 20 and ≥90 years. PCa prevalence was 21% across all ages, and we found no significant difference in 21st century studies versus earlier studies. Autopsy-detected incidental PCa cases were typically small (~0.5cubic cm), predominantly low grade, and only occasionally (10%) extra-prostatic. PCa prevalence increased with age, being detected in >50% in men aged ≥90 years. The frequency of high-grade PCa almost doubled with each increasing age category.

CONCLUSION

Most autopsy-detected PCa cases continue to be clinically insignificant. The prevalence of autopsy-detected PCa was 30-fold greater than PCa-specific mortality in each ten-year age category. This should be considered when counselling elderly men regarding PSA-testing, particularly in the context of competing co-morbidity.

Termination rates and histological reclassification of active surveillance patients with low- and early intermediate-risk prostate cancer: results of the PREFERE trial

Purpose

Active surveillance (AS) strategies for patients with low- and early intermediate-risk prostate cancer are still not consistently defined. Within a controlled randomized trial, active surveillance was compared to other treatment options for patients with prostate cancer. Aim of this analysis was to report on termination rates of patients treated with AS including different grade groups.

Methods

A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy, active surveillance, external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy was performed from 2013 to 2016 and included 345 patients with low- and early intermediate-risk prostate cancer (ISUP grade groups 1 and 2). The trial was prematurely stopped due to slow accrual. A total of 130 patients were treated with active surveillance. Among them, 42 patients were diagnosed with intermediate-risk PCA. Reference pathology and AS quality control were performed throughout.

Results

After a median follow-up time of 18.8 months, 73 out of the 130 patients (56%) terminated active surveillance. Of these, 56 (77%) patients were histologically reclassified at the time of rebiopsy, including 35% and 60% of the grade group 1 and 2 patients, respectively. No patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at the time of reclassification had radical prostatectomy specimens ≥ grade group 3.

Conclusion

In this prospectively analyzed subcohort of patients with AS and conventional staging within a randomized trial, the 2-year histological reclassification rates were higher than those previously reported. Active surveillance may not be based on conventional staging alone, and patients with grade group 2 cancers may be recommended for active surveillance in carefully controlled trials only.

Prostate cancer mortality and metastasis under different biopsy frequencies in North American active surveillance cohorts

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) is an accepted means of managing low-risk prostate cancer. Because of the rarity of downstream events, data from existing AS cohorts cannot yet address how differences in surveillance intensity affect metastasis and mortality. This study projected the comparative benefits of different AS schedules in men diagnosed with prostate cancer who had Gleason score (GS) ≤6 disease and risk profiles similar to those in North American AS cohorts.

METHODS

Times of GS upgrading were simulated based on AS data from the University of Toronto, Johns Hopkins University, the University of California at San Francisco, and the Canary Pass Active Surveillance Cohort. Times to metastasis and prostate cancer death, informed by models from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 trial, were projected under biopsy surveillance schedules ranging from watchful waiting to annual biopsies. Outcomes included the risk of metastasis, the risk of death, remaining life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs.

RESULTS

Compared with watchful waiting, AS biopsies reduced the risk of prostate cancer metastasis and prostate cancer death at 20 years by 1.4% to 3.3% and 1.0% to 2.4%, respectively; and 5-year biopsies reduced the risk of metastasis and prostate cancer death by 1.0% to 2.4% and 0.6% to 1.6%, respectively. There was little difference between annual and 5-year biopsy schedules in terms of LYs (range of differences, 0.04-0.16 LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (range of differences, -0.02 to 0.09 quality-adjusted LYs).

CONCLUSIONS

Among men diagnosed with GS ≤6 prostate cancer, obtaining a biopsy every 3 or 4 years appears to be an acceptable alternative to more frequent biopsies. Reducing surveillance intensity for those who have a low risk of progression reduces the number of biopsies while preserving the benefit of more frequent schedules.

Active surveillance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

Active surveillance (AS), now the standard of care for most men with favourable-risk prostate cancer, is appealing for selected men with 'favourable' intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

This is a review of the indications for conservative management in this population, the outcomes reported in prospective series, and the use of molecular biomarkers and imaging to identify optimal candidates.

RESULTS

Candidates are those patients who are categorized as having intermediate-risk disease either because of a prostate-specific antigen level between 10 and 20 ng/mL, or by virtue of having Grade Group 2 disease, with a small percentage of Gleason 4 pattern, and a negative magnetic resonance imaging result or negative targeted biopsy of a region of interest. Confirmation with a favourable score on a tissue-based genetic assay can provide further reassurance. A subset of patients with intermediate-risk disease has indolent disease that may benefit from AS; at the same time, some patients with intermediate-risk disease have an aggressive clinical course that requires early definitive therapy. This heterogeneity is not adequately captured with traditional histopathological staging. Clinical, genomic and radiological biomarkers are the key to appropriate risk stratification and patient selection.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of AS make it an appealing option for selected patients with intermediate-risk disease.

Grading of prostate cancer: a work in progress

Grading of prostate cancer has evolved substantially over time, not least because of major changes in diagnostic approach and concomitant shifts from late- to early-stage detection since the adoption of PSA testing from the late 1980s. After the conception of the architecture-based nine-tier Gleason grading system more than 50 years ago, several changes were made in order to increase its prognostic impact, to reduce interobserver variation and to improve concordance between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy grading. This eventually resulted in the current five-tier grading system, with a much more detailed description of the individual architectural patterns constituting the remaining three Gleason patterns (i.e. grades 3-5). Nevertheless, there is room for improvement. For instance, distinction of common grade 4 subpatterns such as ill-formed and fused glands from the grade 3 pattern is challenging, blurring the division between low-risk patients who could be eligible for deferred therapy and those who need curative therapy. The last few years have witnessed the publication of several studies on the prognostic impact of individual architectural subpatterns showing that, in particular, the cribriform pattern exceeded the prognostic impact of other grade 4 subpatterns. This review provides an overview of the changes in prostate cancer grading over time and provides a thorough description of the various Gleason subpatterns, the current evidence of their prognostic impact and areas of contention. Potential practical ways for improvements of the current grading system are also put forward.

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.

ESTIMATING AND COMPARING CANCER PROGRESSION RISKS UNDER VARYING SURVEILLANCE PROTOCOLS

Outcomes after cancer diagnosis and treatment are often observed at discrete times via doctor-patient encounters or specialized diagnostic examinations. Despite their ubiquity as endpoints in cancer studies, such outcomes pose challenges for analysis. In particular, comparisons between studies or patient populations with different surveillance schema may be confounded by differences in visit frequencies. We present a statistical framework based on multistate and hidden Markov models that represents events on a continuous time scale given data with discrete observation times. To demonstrate this framework, we consider the problem of comparing risks of prostate cancer progression across multiple active surveillance cohorts with different surveillance frequencies. We show that the different surveillance schedules partially explain observed differences in the progression risks between cohorts. Our application permits the conclusion that differences in underlying cancer progression risks across cohorts persist after accounting for different surveillance frequencies.

Active surveillance review: contemporary selection criteria, follow-up, compliance and outcomes

The primary goal of active surveillance (AS) is to prevent overtreatment by selecting patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and closely monitoring them so that definitive treatment can be offered when needed. With the increasing popularity of AS as a management strategy for men with localized PCa, it is important to understand all the contemporary guidelines and criteria that exist for AS and the differences among them. No single optimal management strategy for clinically localized, early-stage disease has been universally accepted. The implementation of AS varies widely between institutions, from inclusion criteria to follow-up protocols, with the most notable differences seen in maximum accepted Gleason score, T-stage and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) parameters. The objectives of this review were to systematically summarize the current literature on AS strategy, present an overview of the various published guidelines and criteria that are used for AS at several major institutions as well as discuss goals and trade-offs of the various criteria. A comprehensive search of the PubMed and Embase databases from 1990 to 2017 was performed to identify studies pertaining to AS criteria and trends. Trends in AS uptake and use in Canada, USA and Europe were reviewed to demonstrate the current trends and outcomes of AS to offer greater insight into the differences, nature and efficacy of various AS protocols. AS is a compelling antidote to the current PCa overtreatment phenomena; however, when considering patients for AS it is important to understand the differences between protocols, and review published results to appreciate the impact on follow-up.

Comparative Analysis of Biopsy Upgrading in Four Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohorts

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly accepted for managing low-risk prostate cancer, yet there is no consensus about implementation. This lack of consensus is due in part to uncertainty about risks for disease progression, which have not been systematically compared or integrated across AS studies with variable surveillance protocols and dropout to active treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To compare risks for upgrading from a Gleason score (GS) of 6 or less to 7 or more across AS studies after accounting for differences in surveillance intervals and competing treatments and to evaluate tradeoffs of more versus less frequent biopsies.

DESIGN

Joint statistical model of longitudinal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and risks for biopsy upgrading.

SETTING

Johns Hopkins University (JHU); Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS); University of California, San Francisco (UCSF); and University of Toronto (UT) AS studies.

PATIENTS

2576 men aged 40 to 80 years with a GS between 2 and 6 and clinical stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer enrolled between 1995 and 2014.

MEASUREMENTS

PSA levels and biopsy GSs.

RESULTS

After variable surveillance intervals and competing treatments were accounted for, estimated risks for biopsy upgrading were similar in the PASS and UT studies but higher in UCSF and lower in JHU studies. All cohorts had a delay of 3 to 5 months in detecting upgrading with biennial biopsies starting after a first confirmatory biopsy versus annual biopsies.

LIMITATION

The model does not account for possible misclassification of biopsy GS.

CONCLUSION

Men in different AS studies have different risks for biopsy upgrading after variable surveillance protocols and competing treatments are accounted for. Despite these differences, the consequences of more versus less frequent biopsies seem to be similar across cohorts. Biennial biopsies seem to be an acceptable alternative to annual biopsies.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Contemporary Active Surveillance: Candidate Selection, Follow-up Tools, and Expected Outcomes

This article is a summary of the rationale for conservative management, the molecular biology of low-grade cancer, the principles of management, the expected outcome of surveillance, unanswered questions, and research opportunities.

Association between a 17-gene genomic prostate score and multi-parametric prostate MRI in men with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa)

Background

We aimed to directly compare results from multi-parametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) and a biopsy-based 17-gene RT-PCR assay providing a Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) among individuals who were candidates for active surveillance with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa).

Patients and methods

We evaluated the association between GPS results (scale 0–100) and endorectal mpMRI findings in men with clinically localized PCa. MR studies were reviewed to a five-tier scale of increasing suspicion of malignancy. Mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was calculated from a single dominant lesion. Mean rank of the GPS (0–100) among MRI strata was compared with the Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's multiple comparison test. Spearman's correlation was performed to examine the association between mean ADC and scaled GPS.

Results

Of 186 patients who received GPS testing, 100 were identified who received mpMRI. Mean GPS results differed between mpMRI categories (p = 0.001); however a broad range was observed in all mpMRI categories. Among men with biopsy Gleason pattern 3+3, mean GPS results were not significantly different among MRI groups (p = 0.179), but GPS differences were seen among MRI categories for patients with pattern 3+4 (p = 0.010). Mean ADC was weakly associated with GPS (σ = -0.151). Stromal response (p = 0.015) and cellular organization (p = 0.045) gene group scores differed significantly by MRI findings, but no differences were seen among androgen signaling or proliferation genes.

Conclusions

Although a statistically significant association was observed between GPS results and MRI scores, a wide range of GPS values were observed across imaging categories suggesting that mpMRI and genomic profiling may offer non- overlapping clinical insights.

Active Surveillance Versus Watchful Waiting for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Model to Inform Decisions

BACKGROUND

An increasing proportion of prostate cancer is being managed conservatively. However, there are no randomized trials or consensus regarding the optimal follow-up strategy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare life expectancy and quality of life between watchful waiting (WW) versus different strategies of active surveillance (AS).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A Markov model was created for US men starting at age 50, diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who chose conservative management by WW or AS using different testing protocols (prostate-specific antigen every 3-6 mo, biopsy every 1-5 yr, or magnetic resonance imaging based). Transition probabilities and utilities were obtained from the literature.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Primary outcomes were life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes include radical treatment, metastasis, and prostate cancer death.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

All AS strategies yielded more life years compared with WW. Lifetime risks of prostate cancer death and metastasis were, respectively, 5.42% and 6.40% with AS versus 8.72% and 10.30% with WW. AS yielded more QALYs than WW except in cohorts age >65 yr at diagnosis, or when treatment-related complications were long term. The preferred follow-up strategy was also sensitive to whether people value short-term over long-term benefits (time preference). Depending on the AS protocol, 30-41% underwent radical treatment within 10 yr. Extending the surveillance biopsy interval from 1 to 5 yr reduced life years slightly, with a 0.26 difference in QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

AS extends life more than WW, particularly for men with higher-risk features, but this is partly offset by the decrement in quality of life since many men eventually receive treatment.

PATIENT SUMMARY

More intensive active surveillance protocols extend life more than watchful waiting, but this is partly offset by decrements in quality of life from subsequent treatment.

Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Active surveillance is now widely utilized for the management of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The limits of surveillance for men with intermediate risk cancer are controversial. While there is a broad consensus that men with low-risk disease can be safely managed with AS, many potential candidates, including those with Gleason 3 + 4 disease, PSA >10, younger men and African-Americans are often excluded.

RECENT FINDINGS

Outcome data for intermediate-risk patients managed by active surveillance demonstrate reasonable outcomes, but these men clearly are at higher risk for progression to metastatic disease. The use of biomarkers and multiparametric MRI will enable a more precise and personalized risk assessment. Literature describing the effects of young age on outcomes is limited, but the experience reported in prospective series with 15-20 year follow-up suggests it is a safe approach. African-American men are at greater risk for occult co-existent higher-grade disease, but in the absence of this their outcome is favorable. Patients with intermediate-risk PCa should not be excluded from active surveillance based on a single criterion. Treatment decisions should be based on multiple parameters, including percent Gleason 4, PSA density, cancer volume on biopsy, MRI findings, and patient age and co-morbidity. Genetic tissue-based biomarkers are also likely to play a role in enhancing decision making.

Effect of pathologic revision and Ki67 and ERG immunohistochemistry on predicting radical prostatectomy outcome in men initially on active surveillance

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if pathologic biopsy reevaluation and implementation of immunohistochemical biomarkers could improve prediction of radical prostatectomy outcome in men initially on active surveillance.

METHODS

Biopsy specimens from diagnosis until switching to radical prostatectomy in men initially on active surveillance in the Dutch part of the Prostate cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study were collected and revised by a single pathologist. Original and revised biopsy Gleason score were compared and correlated with radical prostatectomy Gleason score. Biopsy specimens were immunohistochemically stained for Ki67 and ERG. Predictive ability of clinical characteristics and biomarkers on Gleason ≥7 or ≥pT3 on radical prostatectomy was tested using logistic regression and ROC curve analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 150 biopsies in 95 men were revised. In 13% of diagnostic or second-to-last biopsies and 20% of the last biopsies on active surveillance revision of Gleason score resulted in change of recommendation (ie, active treatment or active surveillance). Concordance with Gleason score on radical prostatectomy was however similar for both the revised and original Gleason on biopsy. Ki67 and ERG were not statistically significant predictors of Gleason ≥7 or ≥pT3 on radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Although interobserver differences in pathology reporting on biopsy could result in a change of management strategy in approximately 13-20% of men on active surveillance, both pathological revision and tested biomarkers (Ki67 and ERG) did not improve prediction of outcome on radical prostatectomy. Undersampling of most aggressive tumor remains the main focus in order to increase accurate grading at time of treatment decision making.

Active Surveillance in Younger Men With Prostate Cancer

Purpose The suitability of younger patients with prostate cancer (PCa) for initial active surveillance (AS) has been questioned on the basis of eventual treatment necessity and concerns of safety; however, the role of age on surveillance outcomes has not been well defined. Patients and Methods We identified men managed with AS at our institution with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. The primary study objective was to examine the association of age with risk of biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade during AS. We also examined the association of age with related end points, including overall biopsy-determined progression, definitive treatment, and pathologic and biochemical outcomes after delayed radical prostatectomy (RP), using descriptive statistics, the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Results A total of 1,433 patients were followed for a median of 49 months; 74% underwent initial biopsy at a referring institution. Median age at diagnosis was 63 years, including 599 patients (42%) ≤ 60 years old and 834 (58%) > 60 years old. The 3- and 5-year biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade-free rates were 73% and 55%, respectively, for men ≤ 60 years old compared with 64% and 48%, respectively, for men older than 60 years ( P < .01). On Cox regression analysis, younger age was independently associated with lower risk of biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade (hazard ratio per 1-year decrease, 0.969 [95% CI, 0.956 to 0.983]; P < .01), and persisted upon restriction to men meeting strict AS inclusion criteria. There was no significant association between younger age and risk of definitive treatment or risk of biochemical recurrence after delayed RP. Conclusion Younger patient age was associated with decreased risk of biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade during AS but not with risk of definitive treatment in the intermediate term. AS represents a strategy to mitigate overtreatment in young patients with low-risk PCa in the early term.

What is the best way not to treat prostate cancer?

INTRODUCTION

Selective treatment approaches for prostate cancer (PCa) are warranted given the highly varied nature of the disease and the consequences associated with definitive therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We present a stepwise overview of strategies optimized to not treat PCa, ranging from improved screening practices that seek to maximize the yield at initial diagnosis, as well as refinements to clinical risk prediction and the performance of active surveillance.

RESULTS

Improved adherence to screening guidelines offering simplistic, rational practice recommendations are poised to improve the performance of early detection strategies. In addition, measures to improve the quality of PCa screening would include greater integration of novel markers with higher specificity for clinically significant disease, in an effort to stem the tide of over-diagnosis and consequential overtreatment of low-grade tumors. For men diagnosed with PCa, the use of validated, multi-variable risk stratification stands to offer greater certainty in initial management choices: consideration of active surveillance for those with low-risk status, and definitive therapy for men with intermediate and high-risk features. We review the efficacy and nature of active surveillance protocols, and offer a context for refinements that may be anticipated with future study.

CONCLUSIONS

The question of how best to not treat prostate cancer is often more complex than policies of universal treatment, yet is integral to minimize morbidity of over-treatment in patients with low-risk tumors. An array of refined risk stratification instruments, biomarkers, and genomic assays seek to improve the confidence both prior to, and following diagnosis.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice

Prostate cancer remains one of the most commonly diagnosed malignancies worldwide. Early diagnosis and curative treatment seem to improve survival in men with unfavourable-risk cancers, but significant concerns exist regarding the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of men with lower-risk cancers. To this end, active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a primary management strategy in men with favourable-risk disease, and contemporary data suggest that use of AS has increased worldwide. Although published surveillance cohorts differ by protocol, reported rates of metastatic disease and prostate-cancer-specific mortality are exceedingly low in the intermediate term (5-10 years). Such outcomes seem to be closely associated with programme-specific criteria for selection, monitoring, and intervention, suggesting that AS--like other management strategies--could be individualized based on the level of risk acceptable to patients in light of their personal preferences. Additional data are needed to better establish the risks associated with AS and to identify patient-specific characteristics that could modify prognosis.

Gleason inflation 1998-2011: a registry study of 97,168 men

OBJECTIVES

To study long-term trends in Gleason grading in a nationwide population and to assess the impact of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) revision in 2005 of the Gleason system on grading practices, as in recent years there has been a shift upwards in Gleason grading of prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All newly diagnosed prostate cancers in Sweden are reported to the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR). In 97 168 men with a primary diagnosis of prostate cancer on needle biopsy from 1998 to 2011, Gleason score, clinical T stage (cT) and serum levels of prostate-specific antigen (s-PSA) at diagnosis were analysed.

RESULTS

Gleason score, cT stage and s-PSA were reported to the NPCR in 97%, 99% and 99% of cases. Before and after 2005, Gleason score 7-10 was diagnosed in 52% and 57%, respectively (P < 0.001). After standardisation for cT stage and s-PSA with 1998 as baseline these tumours increased from 59% to 72%. Among low-risk tumours (stage cT1 and s-PSA 4-10 ng/mL) Gleason score 7-10 increased from 16% in 1998 to 40% in 2011 (P trend < 0.001), mean 19% and 33% before and after 2005 (P < 0.001). Among high-risk tumours (stage T3 and s-PSA 20-50 ng/mL) Gleason score 7-10 increased from 65% in 1998 to 94% in 2011 (P trend < 0.001), mean 78% and 90% before and after 2005 (P < 0.001). A Gleason score of 2-5 was reported in 27% in 1998 and 1% in 2011. Gleason score 5 decreased sharply after 2005 and Gleason score 2-4 was almost abandoned.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a gradual shift towards higher Gleason grading, which started before 2005 but became more evident after the ISUP 2005 revision. Among low-stage tumours reporting of Gleason score 7-10 was more than doubled during the study period. When corrected for stage migration upgrading is considerable over recent decades. This has clinical consequences for therapy decisions such as eligibility for active surveillance. Grading systems need to be as stable as possible to enable comparisons over time and to facilitate the interpretation of the prognostic impact of grade.