Active Surveillance for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Current Protocols and Outcomes

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

Background

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

Material and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

De-Escalation of Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in men with around 1.4 million new cases every year. In patients with localized disease, management options include active surveillance (AS), radical prostatectomy (RP; with or without pelvic lymph node dissection), or radiotherapy to the prostate (with or without pelvic irradiation) with or without hormonotherapy. In advanced disease, treatment options include systemic treatment(s) and/or treatment to primary tumour and/or metastasis-directed therapies (MDTs). Specifically, in advanced stage, the current trend is earlier intensification of treatment such as dual or triple combination systemic treatments or adding treatment to primary and MDT to systemic treatment. However, earlier treatment intensification comes with the cost of increased morbidity and mortality resulting from drug-/treatment-related side effects. The main goal is and should be to provide the best possible care and oncologic outcomes with minimum possible side effects. This chapter will explore emerging possibilities to de-escalate treatment in PCa driven by enhanced insights into disease biology and the natural course of PCa such as AS in intermediate-risk disease or salvage versus adjuvant radiotherapy in post-RP patients. Considerations arising from advancements in PCa imaging and technological advancements in surgical and radiation therapy techniques including omitting pelvic lymph node dissection in the era of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emitting tomography, the potential of MDT to delay/omit systemic treatment in metachronous oligorecurrence, and the efficacy of hypofractionation schemes compared with conventional fractionated radiotherapy will be discussed.

Latin America and the Caribbean Code Against Cancer 1st Edition: Medical interventions including hormone replacement therapy and cancer screening

Prostate, breast, colorectal, cervical, and lung cancers are the leading cause of cancer in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) accounting for nearly 50% of cancer cases and cancer deaths in the region. Following the IARC Code Against Cancer methodology, a group of Latin American experts evaluated the evidence on several medical interventions to reduce cancer incidence and mortality considering the cancer burden in the region. A recommendation to limit the use of HRT was issued based on the risk associated to develop breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer and on growing concerns related to the over-the-counter and without prescription sales, which in turn bias estimations on current use in LAC. In alignment with WHO breast and cervical cancer initiatives, biennial screening by clinical breast examination (performed by trained health professionals) from the age of 40 years and biennial screening by mammography from the age of 50 years to 74, as well as cervical screening by HPV testing (either self-sampling or provider-sampling) every 5-10 years for women aged 30-64 years, were recommended. The steadily increasing rates of colorectal cancer in LAC also led to recommend colorectal screening by occult blood testing every two years or by endoscopic examination of the colorectum every 10 years for both men and women aged 50-74 years. After evaluating the evidence, the experts decided not to issue recommendations for prostate and lung cancer screening; while there was insufficient evidence on prostate cancer mortality reduction by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, there was evidence of mortality reduction by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) targeting high-risk individuals (mainly heavy and/or long-term smokers) but not individuals with average risk to whom recommendations of this Code are directed. Finally, the group of experts adapted the gathered evidence to develop a competency-based online microlearning program for building cancer prevention capacity of primary care health professionals.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MAIN BODY

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

CONCLUSION

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

Decade-long trends in prostate cancer biopsy grade groups and treatment within a population-based registry

OBJECTIVE

To assess changes in diagnosis prostate cancer (PCa) grade, biopsy and treatment approach over a decade (2011-2020) at a population level within a clinical quality cancer registry.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed by prostate biopsy between 2011 and 2020 were retrieved from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry, a prospective, state-wide clinical quality registry in Australia. Distributions of each grade group (GG) proportion over time were modelled with restricted cubic splines, separately by biopsy technique, age group and subsequent treatment method.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2020, 24 308 men were diagnosed with PCa in the registry. The proportion of GG 1 disease declined from 36-23%, with commensurate rises in GG 2 (31-36%), GG 3 (14-17%) and GG 5 (9.3-14%) disease. This pattern was similar for men diagnosed by transrectal ultrasonography or transperineal biopsy. Patients aged <55 years had the largest absolute reduction in GG 1 PCa, from 56-35%, compared to patients aged 55-64 (41-31%), 65-74 (31-21%), and ≥75 years (12-10%). The proportion of prostatectomies performed for patients with GG 1 disease fell from 28% to 7.1% and, for primary radiation therapy, the proportion fell from 22% to 3.5%.

CONCLUSION

From 2011 to 2020, there has been a substantial decrease in the proportion of GG 1 PCa diagnosed, particularly in younger men. The percentage of interventional management performed in GG 1 disease has fallen to very low levels. These results reflect the implementation of major changes to diagnostic and treatment guidelines and inform the future allocation of treatment methods.

Salvage Radical Prostatectomy after Primary Focal Ablative Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Focal therapy (FT) has been gaining popularity as a treatment option for localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to the associated lower morbidity compared to whole-gland treatment. However, there is an increased risk of local cancer recurrence requiring subsequent treatment in a small proportion of patients.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to better describe and analyze patient postoperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes for those who underwent salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) to manage their primary FT failure.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was completed using three databases (PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL) from October to December 2021 to identify data on outcomes in patients who received sRP for cancer recurrence after prior focal treatment.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

12 articles (482 patients) were included. Median time to sRP was 24 months. Median follow-up time was 27 months. A meta-analysis revealed a postoperative complication rate of 15% (95% CI: 0.09, 0.24), with 4.6% meeting criteria for a major complication Clavien (CG) grade ≥3. Severe GU toxicity was seen in 3.6% of the patients, and no patients had severe GI toxicity. Positive surgical margins (PSM) were found in 27% (95% CI: 0.19, 0.37). Biochemical recurrence (BCR) after sRP occurred in 23% (95% CI: 0.17, 0.30), indicating a BCR-free probability of 77% at 2 years. Continence (pad-free) and potency (ability to have penetrative sex) were maintained in 67% (95% CI: 0.53, 0.78) and 37% (95% CI: 0.18, 0.62) at 12 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our evidence shows acceptable complication rates and oncologic outcomes; however, with suboptimal functional outcomes for patients undergoing sRP for recurrent PCa after prior FT. Inferior outcomes were observed for salvage treatment compared to primary radical prostatectomy (pRP). More high-quality studies are needed to better characterize outcomes after this sequence of PCa treatments.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at treatment outcomes and toxicity for men treated with sRP for prior FT failure. We conclude that these patients will have significant detriment to genitourinary function, with outcomes being worse than those for pRP patients.

Comparison of Outcomes of Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Versus Low-Risk Localised Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Currently, there is no clear consensus regarding the role of active surveillance (AS) in the management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) patients. We aim to analyse data from the available literature on the outcomes of AS in the management of IRPC patients and compare them with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) patients. A comprehensive literature search was performed, and relevant data were extracted. Our primary outcome was treatment-free survival, and secondary outcomes were metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. The DerSimonian–Laird random-effects method was used for the meta-analysis. Out of 712 studies identified following an initial search, 25 studies were included in the systematic review. We found that both IRPC and LRPC patients had nearly similar 5, 10, and 15 year treatment-free survival rate, 5 and 10 year metastasis-free survival rate, and 5 year overall survival rate. However, cancer-specific survival rates at 5, 10, and 15 years were significantly lower in IRPC compared to LRPC group. Furthermore, IRPC patients had significantly inferior long-term overall survival rate (10 and 15 year) and metastasis-free survival rate (15 year) compared to LRPC patients. Both the clinicians and the patients can consider this information during the informed decision-making process before choosing AS.

Modern Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review

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

Active Surveillance for Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Metaregression

CONTEXT

Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly selected among patients with localized, intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa). However, the safety and optimal candidate selection for those with IR PCa remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate treatment-free survival and oncologic outcomes in patients with IR PCa managed with AS and to compare with AS outcomes in low-risk (LR) PCa patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was conducted through February 2022 using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. The coprimary outcomes were treatment-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival. A subgroup analysis was planned a priori to explore AS outcomes when limiting inclusion to IR patients with a Gleason grade (GG) of ≤2.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 25 studies including 29 673 unselected IR patients met our inclusion criteria. The 10-yr treatment-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival ranged from 19.4% to 69%, 80.8% to 99%, 88.2% to 99%, and 59.4% to 83.9%, respectively. IR patients had similar treatment-free survival to LR patients (risk ratio [RR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99-1.36, p = 0.07), but significantly higher risks of metastasis (RR 5.79, 95% CI, 4.61-7.29, p < 0.001), death from PCa (RR 3.93, 95% CI, 2.93-5.27, p < 0.001), and all-cause death (RR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.11-1.86, p = 0.005). In a subgroup analysis of studies including patients with GG ≤2 only (n = 4), treatment-free survival (RR 1.03, 95% CI, 0.62-1.71, p = 0.91) and metastasis-free survival (RR 2.09, 95% CI, 0.75-5.82, p = 0.16) were similar between LR and IR patients. Treatment-free survival was significantly reduced in subgroups of patients with unfavorable IR disease and increased cancer length on biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis highlight the need to optimize patient selection for those with IR features. Our findings support limiting the inclusion of IR patients in AS to those with low-volume GG 2 tumor.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Active surveillance is increasingly used in patients with localized, intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer. In this population, we have reported higher risks of metastasis and cancer mortality in unselected patients than in patients with low-risk features, underscoring the need to optimize the selection of patients with IR features.

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

Simple Summary

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

Abstract

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

Active surveillance protocol in prostate cancer in Portugal

OBJECTIVE

To examine clinical practice patterns in locally managing patients under an active surveillance protocol among Portuguese urologists.

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogeneous disease with many prostate adenocarcinomas being indolent and a low probability of ever causing symptoms or death. Active surveillance (AS) is a form of conservative management aimed to reduce over-treatment for low-risk PCa patients. Over the years, experience with AS has grown considerably and is now standard in some countries, however a universal protocol still does not exist.

METHODS

Nationwide anonymous e-survey concerning habits and practices on AS among Portuguese urologists, that consisted of twelve questions and was sent electronically to all 368 current members of the Portuguese Urological Association.

RESULTS

56 urologists were surveyed (15.21% answer rate), evenly distributed geographically and allocated according to years of experience as well as number of PCa patients managed monthly. The vast majority of respondents recommends AS to their patients, particularly ISUP grade 1 patients, whose PSA serum level is bellow 20 ng/mL. Observance of AS programs by patients was not in question but concerns exist over psychological morbidity while harboring disease. Majority believed that international guidelines surveillance protocols were adequate and sufficient, but there are some constraints concerning availability of periodic MRIs and re-biopsy needs.

CONCLUSIONS

AS seems to be sustained in urologist clinical practice, although patients still lag to adhere and choose for active treatment. AS may not be an easy choice for patients and clinicians due to uncertainty of disease progression, risk of loss to follow-up and repeated biopsies but is also a cause for anxiety, depression, uncertainty and a perception of danger.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Overdiagnosis and stage migration of ISUP 2 disease due to mpMRI-targeted biopsy: facts or fictions

Recently, the use of targeted biopsy has been subject to critics, as it has been speculated that targeted biopsy might lead to overdiagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). In this study, we tried to evaluate whether targeted sampling in patients with organ-confined disease and ISUP 2 disease was associated with downgrading of the prostatectomy specimen, hence, leading to an unnecessary treatment, in terms of radical surgery. We relied on a prospectively-maintained multi-institutional database and identified 1293 patients with ISUP 2 disease on targeted biopsy only. Median (IQR) patients' age at diagnosis was 65 (60, 70) years. Median PSA was 6.8 (5.0, 9.6) ng/ml. Overall, only 33 (2.6%) patients presented downgrading on their RP specimens. Patients who experienced downgrading were biopsied more frequently trans-rectally, had a lower total tumor length in mm and lower percentage of maximum core involvement and lower rates of cancer on systematic biopsy (all p ≤ 0.03). The strongest factors associated with reduced risk of downgrading were total tumor length, in mm, (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.62,0.82, p < 0.001) and transperineal biopsy route (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.14,1.00, p = 0.05).

Active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) is an established approach in the management of low-risk, localized prostate cancer. While the use of AS to manage intermediate-risk (IR) disease has gradually increased over time, there remains uncertainty with regards to its safety, with only a minority of IR patients currently being managed with this approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a narrative review based on an analysis of the literature focusing on articles describing AS for IR prostate cancer. We focus on the uncertainty surrounding AS in IR disease by discussing variations in the definitions and guideline recommendations associated with IR disease, and describing the limitations of the evidence from observational studies and randomized trials.

CONCLUSION

The safety of AS for IR disease remains unknown, given the lack of randomized trials and the limitations of the current observational studies. Further research is needed to identify select patients with IR prostate cancer that can be managed safely with AS.

Percentage Gleason pattern 4 and PI-RADS score predict upgrading in biopsy Grade Group 2 prostate cancer patients without cribriform pattern

PURPOSE

To identify parameters to predict upgrading in biopsy Grade Group (GG) 2 prostate cancer patients without cribriform and intraductal carcinoma (CR/IDC) on biopsy.

METHODS

Preoperative biopsies from 657 men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer were reviewed for GG, presence of CR/IDC, percentage Gleason pattern 4, and tumor length. In men with biopsy GG2 without CR/IDC (n = 196), clinicopathologic features were compared between those with GG1 or GG2 without CR/IDC on RP (GG ≤ 2-) and those with GG2 with CR/IDC or any GG > 2 (GG ≥ 2+). Logistic regression analysis was used to predict upgrading in the biopsy cohort.

RESULTS

In total 283 men had biopsy GG2 of whom 87 (30.7%) had CR/IDC and 196 (69.3%) did not. CR/IDC status in matched biopsy and RP specimens was concordant in 179 (63.3%) and discordant in 79 (27.9%) cases (sensitivity 45.1%; specificity 92.6%). Of 196 biopsy GG2 men without CR/IDC, 106 (54.1%) had GG ≥ 2+ on RP. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that age [odds ratio (OR): 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI)1.09-3.20; p = 0.025], percentage Gleason pattern 4 (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.17-2.07; p = 0.003), PI-RADS 5 lesion (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.03-4.70; p = 0.045) and clinical stage T3 (OR 3.60; 95% CI 1.08-14.50; p = 0.049) were independent parameters to predict upgrading to GG ≥  2+ on RP in these men.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, clinical stage T3, percentage Gleason pattern 4 and presence of PI-RADS 5 lesions are independent predictors for upgrading in men with biopsy GG2 without CR/IDC. These findings allow for improved clinical decision-making on surveillance eligibility in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.

An optimized prostate biopsy strategy in patients with a unilateral lesion on prostate magnetic resonance imaging avoids unnecessary biopsies

Purpose:

The introduction of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TBx) besides systematic prostate biopsies has resulted in a discussion on what the optimal prostate biopsy strategy is. The ideal template has high sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), while reducing the detection rate of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (iPCa). This study evaluates different biopsy strategies in patients with a unilateral prostate MRI lesion.

Methods:

Retrospective subgroup analysis of a prospectively managed database consisting of patients undergoing prostate biopsy in two academic centres. Patients with a unilateral lesion (PI-RADS ⩾ 3) on MRI were included for analysis. The primary objective was to evaluate the diagnostic performance for different biopsy approaches compared with bilateral systematic prostate biopsy (SBx) and TBx. Detection rates for csPCa (ISUP ⩾ 2), adjusted csPCa (ISUP ⩾ 3) and iPCa (ISUP = 1) were determined for SBx alone, TBx alone, contralateral SBx combined with TBx and ipsilateral SBx combined with TBx. A subgroup analysis was performed for biopsy-naive patients.

Results:

A total of 228 patients were included from October 2015 to September 2021. Prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate of combined SBx and TBx was 63.5% for csPCa, 35.5% for adjusted csPCa, and 14% for iPCa. The best performing alternative biopsy strategy was TBx and ipsilateral SBx, which reached a sensitivity of 98.6% (95% CI: 95.1–99.6) for csPCa and 98.8% (95% CI: 96.3–99.9) for adjusted csPCa, missing only 1.4% of csPCa, while reducing iPCa detection by 15.6% compared with SBx and TBx. TBx or SBx alone missed a significant amount of csPCa, with sensitivities of 90.3% (95% CI: 84.4–94.2) and 86.8% (95% CI: 80.4–91.4) for csPCa. Subgroup analysis on biopsy-naive patients showed similar results as the overall group.

Conclusion:

This study shows that performing TBx with ipsilateral SBx and omitting contralateral SBx is the optimal biopsy strategy in patients with a unilateral MRI lesion. With this strategy, a very limited amount of csPCa is missed and iPCa detection is reduced.

Deferred radical prostatectomy in patients who initially elected for active surveillance: a multi-institutional, prospective, observational cohort of the PRIAS-JAPAN study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the pathological findings and oncological outcomes of deferred radical prostatectomy in patients who initially elected for active surveillance in a Japanese cohort.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data collected from a multi-institutional prospective observational cohort of the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance-JAPAN study between January 2010 and September 2020. Triggers for radical prostatectomy were disease progression based on pathological findings of repeat biopsy and patients' request. The primary end point was evaluation of prostate-specific antigen recurrence-free survival. Secondary end points were overall survival and comparison of pathological and oncological outcomes between patients stratified into immediate or late radical prostatectomy group by time to radical prostatectomy.

RESULTS

Overall, 162 patients (15.7%) with prostate cancer underwent initial active surveillance followed by radical prostatectomy. The median time to radical prostatectomy was 18 months (interquartile range 14-43.3), and the median postoperative follow-up was 32 months (interquartile range 14-57.5). Prostate-specific antigen recurrence was observed in eight patients (4.9%). The 3-year prostate-specific antigen recurrence-free survival rate was 96.9%. The 5-year overall survival rate was 100%; however, one patient died of another cause. There were no significant differences in pathological findings between immediate and late radical prostatectomy groups. No significant difference in prostate-specific antigen recurrence-free survival was found between the two groups (log-rank p = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Radical prostatectomy after active surveillance, as an initial treatment option, does not lead to loss of curative chances in Japanese patients with early-stage prostate cancer in the short follow-up period.

A European Model for an Organised Risk-stratified Early Detection Programme for Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

Overdiagnosis as the argument to stop prostate cancer (PCa) screening is less valid since the introduction of new technologies such as risk calculators (RCs) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These new technologies result in fewer unnecessary biopsy procedures and fewer cases of both overdiagnosis and underdetection. Therefore, we can now adequately respond to the growing and urgent need for a structured risk assessment to detect PCa early.

OBJECTIVE

To provide expert discussion on the existing evidence for a previously published risk-stratified strategy regarding an organised population-based early detection programme for PCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The proposed algorithm for early detection of PCa emerged from expert consensus by the authors based on available evidence derived from a nonsystematic review of the current literature using Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library database, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry, and the European Association of Urology guidelines on PCa.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Although not confirmed by the highest level of evidence, current literature and guidelines point towards an algorithm for early detection of PCa that starts with risk-based prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, followed by multivariable risk stratification with RCs. All men who are classified to be at intermediate and high risk are then offered prostate MRI. The combined data from RCs and MRI results can be used to select men for prostate biopsy. Low-risk men return to a risk-based safety net that includes individualised PSA-interval tests and, if necessary, repeated MRI. Depending on local availability, the use of the different risk stratification tools may be adapted.

CONCLUSIONS

We present a risk-stratified algorithm for an organised population-based early detection programme for clinically significant PCa. Although the proposed strategy has not yet been analysed prospectively, it exploits and may even improve the most important available benefits of "PSA-only" screening studies, while at the same time reduces unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis by using new risk stratification tools.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This paper presents a personalised strategy that enables selective early detection of prostate cancer by combining prostate-specific antigen (interval) testing' prediction models (risk calculators), and magnetic resonance imaging scans. This will likely lead to reduced prostate cancer-related morbidity and mortality, while reducing the need for prostate biopsy and limiting overdiagnosis.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer

Many men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer can postpone definitive treatment without raising their risk of metastasis or death from disease. Active surveillance (AS) is a method of monitoring select men, with the option of switching to active treatment upon signs of progression, thereby avoiding the well-known side-effects of surgery and radiotherapy. This review analyzes the data from long-running AS cohorts to determine the safety and efficacy of AS. We conducted a narrative review of recently published data, including 14 articles from 13 AS cohorts. The cohorts used varying inclusion criteria, with reported differences in clinical T stage and Gleason Score (Grade Group), among other features. Some studies (n=5) limited their cohorts to low-risk patients, while others (n=8) also included intermediate-risk patients. The heterogeneity of the cohorts produced mixed results, with the risk of prostate cancer metastasis ranging from 0.1–1.0% at 10 years and the risk of prostate cancer mortality ranging from 0–1.9% at 10 years. However, the majority of studies reported risks of less than 0.5% at 10 years for both metastasis and death. For most cohorts, half of men remained untreated for 5–10 years, with estimates ranging from 37% receiving active treatment in the Toronto cohort to 73% in the Prostate Cancer Research International AS (PRIAS) study. Current data do not support the use of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to avoid scheduled biopsy. Taken together, the data collected from these AS cohorts suggests that AS is a safe approach for men with low-grade prostate cancer and some men with intermediate risk disease. AS should be more broadly implemented for eligible patients to avoid the decreases in quality of life from undergoing active treatment. Studies expanding the inclusion criteria and further defining a subset of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer who might safely benefit from AS are needed to assess the long-term outcomes of using AS in intermediate-risk groups.

Oncologic impact of delaying radical prostatectomy in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To summarize the available evidence on the survival and pathologic outcomes after deferred radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

The PubMed database and Web of Science were searched in November 2020 according to the PRISMA statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they reported the survival and pathologic outcomes of patients treated with deferred RP for intermediate- and high-risk PCa compared to the control group including those patients treated with RP without delay.

RESULTS

Overall, nineteen studies met our eligibility criteria. We found a significant heterogeneity across the studies in terms of definitions for delay and outcomes, as well as in patients' baseline clinicopathologic features. According to the currently available literature, deferred RP does not seem to affect oncological survival outcomes, such as prostate cancer-specific mortality and metastasis-free survival, in patients with intermediate- or high-risk PCa. However, the impact of deferred RP on biochemical recurrence rates remains controversial. There is no clear association of deferring RP with any of the features of aggressive disease such as pathologic upgrading, upstaging, positive surgical margins, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node invasion. Deferred RP was not associated with the need for secondary treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Owing to the different definitions of a delayed RP, it is hard to make a consensus regarding the safe delay time. However, the current data suggest that deferring RP in patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa for at least around 3 months is generally safe, as it does not lead to adverse pathologic outcomes, biochemical recurrence, the need for secondary therapy, or worse oncological survival outcomes.

[Active surveillance-much safety, little recruitment : Is it possible to extend the indication for "intermediate-risk" prostate cancer?]

BACKGROUND

In contrast to North America or Sweden, active surveillance (AS) has not yet become established in our country for suitable prostate carcinomas (PCa). The strict entry criteria specified by the guideline are not likely to improve the acceptance in the near future. In early detection, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing leads to high numbers of overtreatment. There are various reasons for the continued preference for radical surgery.

OBJECTIVES

The goal is to examine whether the heterogeneous group with intermediate-risk PCa contains tumors that may be eligible for AS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the HAROW trial, 52 AS patients with differently defined intermediate-risk PCa were followed for a median of 85.6 months. Oncologic outcomes are reported.

RESULTS

Sixteen (30%) patients had a tumor of cT2b category, 21 (40%) had a Gleason score 3 + 4, 7 (14%) had ≥3 positive biopsy cores, 21 (40%) had a PSA >10 ng/ml, and 22 (42%) had a PSA density >0.2 ng/ml². Carcinoma-specific and metastasis-free survival were 100% and 96%, respectively. Thirty four patients discontinued AS in favor of invasive treatment, and an additional eight men maintained a noninvasive approach by switching to watchful waiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts are under way to specify the criteria for patients with intermediate-risk PCa who may be eligible for AS. Tumors of cT2 category could be grouped together. The Gleason 4 fraction needs to be quantified because it determines the prognosis.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) has been widely adopted for the management of men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, there is still a lack of consensus surrounding the optimal approach for monitoring men in AS protocols. While conservative management aims to reduce the burden of invasive testing without compromising oncological safety, inadequate assessment can result in misclassification and unintended over- or undertreatment, leading to increased patient morbidity, cost, and undue risk. No universally accepted AS protocol exists, although numerous strategies have been developed in an attempt to optimize the management of clinically localized disease. Variability in selection criteria, reclassification, triggers for definitive treatment, and follow-up exists between guidelines and institutions for AS. In this review, we summarize the landscape of AS by providing an overview of the existing AS protocols, guidelines, and their published outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic search was performed to identify representative studies and guidelines pertaining to AS selection criteria and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

While AS is a safe and increasingly utilized treatment modality for lower-risk forms of PCa, ongoing research is needed to optimize patient selection as well as surveillance protocols along with improved implementation across practices. Further, assessment of companion risk assessment tools, such as mpMRI and tissue-based biomarkers, is also needed and will require rigorous prospective study.