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

Prostate cancer screening and management in patients candidate for endoscopic enucleation of the prostate: an international survey

BACKGROUND

To explore how urologists manage prostate cancer (PCa) screening and treatment in patients undergoing endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP).

METHODS

A team of experts in EEP collaboratively formulated the survey questions through an interactive process. The survey opened in January 2024 and closed in February 2024.

RESULTS

102 urologists responded, revealing that most use PSA and digital rectal examination for screening, with high PSA and abnormal DRE prompting prostate MRI. 75% perform pre-EEP biopsies. For incidental low-grade PCa, active surveillance is preferred. For intermediate-grade PCa, most use PSA and MRI for workup, often choosing active surveillance if post-EEP biopsies are negative. There's no consensus on abnormal post-operative PSA thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

While urologists are aware of PCa management in EEP candidates, future work should focus on developing optimal post-EEP screening protocols.

MRI at diagnostic versus confirmatory biopsy during MRI-based active surveillance of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

Active surveillance (AS) is a management strategy for patients with favorable risk prostate cancer. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may impact upgrading rates, but there is mixed evidence on the appropriate timing to introduce mpMRI. We evaluated timing of initial mpMRI use for patients on AS and compared upgrading and intervention rates for AS candidates who received initial mpMRI before diagnostic biopsy vs. confirmatory biopsy.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Patients enrolled in AS captured by the Prospective Loyola Urology mpMRI (PLUM) Prostate Biopsy Cohort which captures men undergoing MRI-fusion prostate biopsy. We included patients enrolled in AS between January 2014 and October 2022. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent MRI-fusion prostate biopsy while on AS at our institution. The cohort was stratified by men who underwent first mpMRI prior to diagnostic biopsy (MRI-DBx), confirmatory biopsy (MRI-CBx), or a subsequent surveillance biopsy. Oncologic outcomes including pathologic reclassification, intervention-free survival, progression-free survival, and overall survival were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 346 patients identified on AS, 94 (27.2%) received mpMRI at the time of diagnostic biopsy, 182 (52.6%) at confirmatory biopsy, and 70 (20.2%) at a later biopsy. At confirmatory biopsy (median 14 months), there was no difference in upgrading (HR 0.95, P = 0.78) or intervention rates (HR 0.97, P = 0.88) between MRI-DBx and MRI-CBx. PI-RADS score on initial mpMRI was associated with upgrading during AS follow-up relative to men with negative mpMRI (HR 4.20 (P = 0.04), 3.24 (P < 0.001), and 1.99 (P < 0.001) for PI-RADS 5, 4, and 3, respectively), and PSA density was associated with intervention (HR 1.52, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

mpMRI can serve as a prognostic tool to select and monitor AS patients, but there was no difference in upgrading or intervention rates based on initial timing of MRI.

Does Overgrading on Targeted Biopsy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-visible Lesions in Prostate Cancer Lead to Overtreatment?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Targeted biopsy of the index prostate cancer (PCa) lesion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is effective in reducing the risk of overdiagnosis of indolent PCa. However, it remains to be determined whether MRI-targeted biopsy can lead to a stage shift via overgrading of the index lesion by focusing only on the highest-grade component, and to a subsequent risk of overtreatment. Our aim was to assess whether overgrading on MRI-targeted biopsy may lead to overtreatment, using radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens as the reference standard.

METHODS

Patients with clinically localized PCa who had positive MRI findings (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score ≥3) and Gleason grade group (GG) ≥2 disease detected on MRI-targeted biopsy were retrospectively identified from a prospectively maintained database that records all RP procedures from eight referral centers. Biopsy grade was defined as the highest grade detected. Downgrading was defined as lower GG for the RP specimen than for MRI-targeted biopsy. Overtreatment was defined as downgrading to RP GG 1 for cases with GG ≥2 on biopsy, or to RP low-burden GG 2 for cases with GG ≥3 on biopsy.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

We included 1020 consecutive biopsy-naïve patients with GG ≥2 PCa on MRI-targeted biopsy in the study. Pathological analysis of RP specimens showed downgrading in 178 patients (17%). The transperineal biopsy route was significantly associated with a lower risk of downgrading (odds ratio 0.364, 95% confidence interval 0.142-0.814; p = 0.022). Among 555 patients with GG 2 on targeted biopsy, only 18 (3.2%) were downgraded to GG 1 on RP. Among 465 patients with GG ≥3 on targeted biopsy, three (0.6%) were downgraded to GG 1 and seven were downgraded to low-burden GG 2 on RP. The overall risk of overtreatment due to targeted biopsy was 2.7% (28/1020).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Our multicenter study revealed no strong evidence that targeted biopsy results could lead to a high risk of overtreatment.

Targeted microwave ablation for prostate cancer (FOSTINE1b): a prospective 'ablate-and-resect' study

OBJECTIVE

To assess histopathological outcomes, as well as feasibility and safety of targeted microwave ablation (TMA) via the Trinity® system (KOELIS, La Tronche, France).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective, single-institution, interventional Phase IIa study with an 'ablate-and-resect' design. In all, 11 patients diagnosed with localised prostate cancer (PCa) underwent TMA via the Trinity system under conscious sedation in an outpatient setting using a single transrectal TATO® 18-G antenna with different treatment regimens. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) were conducted at 7 days and 1 month after TMA, respectively. Nine patients received RARP, and two patients chose to withdraw their consent following TMA. These men chose an active surveillance protocol upon confirmation of a low-risk prostate cancer diagnosis. Functional outcomes and adverse events were evaluated at baseline and follow-up visits using validated questionnaires. Prostate volumetry and confirmation of necrosis were carried out through MRI and whole-mount histopathological examination.

RESULTS

The TMA was successfully executed, and all patients were discharged on the same day. No severe adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Grade ≥3) were reported at the 7-day and 1-month follow-up visits. Additionally, no declines were observed in urinary, sexual and ejaculation functional outcomes. T1-weighted MRI revealed clear and well-defined ablation zones. The RARP was executed without difficulty, particularly during the dissection of the posterior plane. As a result, no intraoperative complications were encountered. Histopathological assessment on surgical specimens confirmed the absence of viable cells, indicating complete necrosis of the ablative zone if a power intensity >10 W was used during TMA. Ablation zone volumetry revealed no notable distinctions between the three-dimensional segmentation of the virtual ablation zone at TMA (median volume: 2 mL) and MRI (median volume: 1.923 mL). Conversely, a significant reduction was noted in the surgical specimen (median volume: 0.221 mL).

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted microwave ablation via the Trinity system for localised PCa treatment proves to be a secure and feasible procedure, with complete necrosis evidence within the ablation zone on surgical specimens.

MRI lesion size is more important than the number of positive biopsy cores in predicting adverse features and recurrence after radical prostatectomy: implications for active surveillance criteria in intermediate-risk patients

INTRODUCTION

To determine associations between prostate cancer (PCa) tumor burden measured on biopsy or multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and outcomes in intermediate-risk (IR) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 men managed with primary radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

This retrospective, multicenter study was conducted in eight referral centers. The cohort included IR PCa patients who had ISUP 2 at biopsy. We defined biopsy tumor burden as low/high based on the absence/presence of more than 25% positive cores. Tumor burden on imaging was defined as low/high based on maximum lesion diameter, <15 mm and ≥15 mm at mpMRI, respectively. The histological endpoint of the study was adverse features at RP, defined as ≥pT3a stage and/or lymph node invasion and/or ISUP ≥3 at final pathology. The clinical endpoint was biochemical recurrence (BCR) after RP.

RESULTS

A total of 698 IR patients was included, of whom 335 (48%) had adverse features. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, there was no statistical association between tumor burden at biopsy and adverse features (p = 0.7). Tumor size ≥15 mm at mpMRI was significantly associated with adverse pathology (OR 1.65, 95%CI 1.14-2.39; p = 0.01). No significant association was observed between tumor burden at biopsy and BCR (p = 0.4). Tumor size ≥15 mm at mpMRI was significantly associated with BCR (HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.01-3.80; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support extending the inclusion criteria to ISUP 2 men with >25% positive cores, provided they have a low tumor size at mpMRI (<15 mm). Prospective studies should be performed to validate these findings.

Active surveillance of low-grade prostate cancer using the SurACaP Criteria: A multi-institutional series with a median follow-up of 10years

PURPOSE

To report on the oncological outcomes of active surveillance (AS) in low-grade prostate cancer (PCa) patients using the French SurACaP protocol, with a focus on long-term outcomes.

METHODS

This multicenter study recruited patients with low-grade PCa between 2007 and 2013 in four referral centers in France. The cohort included patients meeting the SurACaP inclusion criteria, i.e., aged ≤75years, with low-grade PCa (i.e., ISUP 1), clinical stage T1c/T2a, PSA ≤10ng/mL and ≤3 positive cores and tumor length ≤3mm per core. The SurACaP protocol included a digital rectal examination every six months, PSA level measurement every three months for the first two years after inclusion and twice a year thereafter, a confirmatory biopsy in the first year after inclusion, and then follow-up biopsy every two years or if disease progression was suspected. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) was progressively included over the study period.

RESULTS

A total of 86 consecutive patients were included, with a median follow-up of 10.6 years. Only one patient developed metastases and died of PCa. The estimated rates of grade reclassification and treatment-free survival at 15 years were 53.4% and 21.2%, respectively. A negative mpMRI at baseline and a negative confirmatory biopsy were significantly associated with a lower risk of disease progression (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

AS using the French SurACaP protocol is a safe and valuable strategy for patients with low-risk PCa, with excellent oncological outcomes after more than 10 years' follow-up. Future studies are crucial to broaden the inclusion criteria and develop a personalized, risk based AS protocol with the aim of de-escalating follow-up examinations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Grade 4.

The Added Value of Side-specific Systematic Biopsy in Patients Diagnosed by Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy

BACKGROUND

Systematic biopsy (SB) combined with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy is still recommended considering the risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the added value in csPCa detection on side-specific SB relative to MRI lesion and to externally validate the Noujeim risk stratification model that predicts the risk of csPCa on distant SB cores relative to the index MRI lesion.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Overall, 4841 consecutive patients diagnosed by MRI-targeted biopsy and SB for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score ≥3 lesions were identified from a prospectively maintained database between January 2016 and April 2023 at 15 European referral centers. A total of 2387 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

McNemar's test was used to compare the csPCa detection rate between several biopsy strategies including MRI-targeted biopsy, side-specific SB, and a combination of both. Model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination using area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Overall, the csPCa detection rate was 49%. Considering MRI-targeted biopsy as reference, the added values in terms of csPCa detection were 5.8% (relative increase of 13%), 4.2% (relative increase of 9.8%), and 2.8% (relative increase of 6.1%) for SB, ipsilateral SB, and contralateral SB, respectively. Only 35 patients (1.5%) exclusively had csPCa on contralateral SB (p < 0.001). Considering patients with csPCa on MRI-targeted biopsy and ipsilateral SB, the upgrading rate was 2% (20/961) using contralateral SB (p < 0.001). The Noujeim model exhibited modest performance (AUC of 0.63) when tested using our validation set.

CONCLUSIONS

The added value of contralateral SB was negligible in terms of cancer detection and upgrading rates. The Noujeim model could be included in the decision-making process regarding the appropriate prostate biopsy strategy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In the present study, we collected a set of patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and systematic biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. We found that biopsies taken at the opposite side of the MRI suspicious lesion have a negligible impact on cancer detection. We also validate a risk stratification model that predicts the risk of cancer on biopsies beyond 10 mm from the initial lesion, which could be used in daily practice to improve the personalization of the prostate biopsy.

Follow-up of vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy in a real-world setting

PURPOSE

Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP) is an approved treatment option for unilateral low-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

Patients with unilateral low- or intermediate-risk PCa undergoing hemiablation by VTP were evaluated in a real-world setting. Oncological outcome after VTP was measured by MRI-based re-biopsy at 12 and 24 months. Functional outcome after 1 year was investigated by IIEF-5 and IPSS questionnaires. Progression was defined as the evidence3 of ISUP ≥ 2 PCa.

RESULTS

At any control biopsy (n = 46) after VTP, only 37% of patients showed no evidence of PCa. Recurrence-free survival was 20 months (95% CI 4.9-45.5) and progression-free survival was 38.5 months (95% CI 33.5-43.6 months). In-field and out-field recurrent PCa occurs in 37% (55% ISUP ≥ 2 PCa) and 35% (56% ISUP ≥ 2 PCa). Seventy-nine percent of patients preserved erectile function, respectively. Ten percent of patients presented long-term bladder outlet obstruction. None of the patients presented incontinence.

CONCLUSION

Due to the high-recurrence in- and out-field recurrence rate in a mainly low-risk prostate cancer cohort, VTP has to be regarded critically as a therapy option in these patients. Pre-interventional diagnostic evaluation is the main issue before focal therapy to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and progression.

MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsy Introduces Grade Inflation and Overtreatment

Purpose

The use of MRI-targeted biopsies has led to lower detection of Gleason Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer and increased detection of GG2 disease. Although this finding is generally attributed to improved sensitivity and specificity of MRI for aggressive cancers, it might also be explained by grade inflation. Our objective was to determine the likelihood of definitive treatment and risk of post-treatment recurrence for patients with GG2 cancer diagnosed using targeted biopsies relative to men with GG1 cancer diagnosed using systematic biopsies.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study on a large tertiary centre registry (HUS Acamedic Datalake) to retrieve data on prostate cancer diagnosis, treatment, and cancer recurrence. We included patients with either GG1 with systematic biopsies (3317 men) or GG2 with targeted biopsies (554 men) from 1993 to 2019. We assessed the risk of curative treatment and recurrence after treatment. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were computed to assess treatment- and recurrence-free survival. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to assess the risk of posttreatment recurrence.

Results

Patients with systematic biopsy detected GG1 cancer had a significantly longer median time-to-treatment (31 months) than those with targeted biopsy detected GG2 cancer (4 months, p<0.0001). The risk of recurrence after curative treatment was similar between groups with the upper bound of 95% CI, excluding an important difference (HR: 0.94, 95% CI [0.71-1.25], p=0.7).

Conclusion

GG2 cancers detected by MRI-targeted biopsy are treated more aggressively than GG1 cancers detected by systematic biopsy, despite having similar oncologic risk. To prevent further overtreatment related to the MRI pathway, treatment guidelines from the pre-MRI era need to be updated to consider changes in the diagnostic pathway.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Active Surveillance Without Annual Rebiopsy in Patients with Grade Group 1 or 2 Prostate Cancer: The Prospective PROMM-AS Study

Background

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may allow patients with prostate cancer (PC) on active surveillance (AS) to avoid repeat prostate biopsies during monitoring.

Objective

To assess the ability of mpMRI to reduce guideline-mandated biopsy and to predict grade group upgrading in patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) 1 or GG 2 PC using Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) scores. The hypothesis was that the AS disqualification rate (ASDQ) rate could be reduced to 15%.

Design setting and participants

PROMM-AS was a prospective study assessing 2-yr outcomes for an mpMRI-guided AS protocol. A 12 mo after AS inclusion on the basis of MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy (FBx), all patients underwent mpMRI. For patients with stable mpMRI (PRECISE 1-3), repeat biopsy was deferred and follow-up mpMRI was scheduled for 12 mo later. Patients with mpMRI progression (PRECISE 4-5) underwent FBx. At the end of the study, follow-up FBx was indicated for all patients.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for upgrading to GG 2 in the GG 1 group, and to GG 3 in the GG 2 group on MRI. We performed regression analyses that included clinical variables.

Results and limitations

The study included 101 patients with PC (60 GG 1 and 41 GG 2). Histopathological progression occurred in 31 patients, 18 in the GG 1 group and 13 in the GG 2 group. Thus, the aim of reducing the ASDQ rate to 15% was not achieved. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for PRECISE scoring of MRI were 94%, 64%, 81%, and 88% in the GG 1 group, and 92%, 50%, 92%, and 50%, respectively, in the GG 2 group. On regression analysis, initial prostate-specific antigen (p < 0.001) and higher PRECISE score (4-5; p = 0.005) were significant predictors of histological progression of GG 1 PC. Higher PRECISE score (p = 0.009), initial Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score (p = 0.009), previous negative biopsy (p = 0.02), and percentage Gleason pattern 4 (p = 0.04) were significant predictors of histological progression of GG 2 PC. Limitations include extensive MRI reading experience, the small sample size, and limited follow-up.

Conclusions

MRI-guided monitoring of patients on AS using PRECISE scores avoided unnecessary follow-up biopsies in 88% of patients with GG 1 PC and predicted upgrading during 2-yr follow-up in both GG 1 and GG 2 PC.

Patient summary

We investigated whether MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scores can be used to guide whether patients with lower-risk prostate cancer who are on active surveillance (AS) need to undergo repeat biopsies. Follow-up biopsy was deferred for 1 year for patients with a stable score and performed for patients whose score progressed. After 24 months on AS, all men underwent MRI and biopsy. Among patients with grade group 1 cancer and a stable MRI score, 88% avoided biopsy. For patients with MRI score progression, AS termination was correctly recommended in 81% of grade group 1 and 92% of grade group 2 cases.

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.

Active surveillance in favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer: A single-center experience

PURPOSE

To report the long-term oncological outcomes of active surveillance (AS) in selected patients with favorable intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

A retrospective database review of two academic centers was conducted to identify favorable IR PCa patients initially managed by AS between 2014 and 2022. Favorable IR PCa was defined by the presence of one single element of IR disease (i.e., PSA 10-20ng/mL, Gleason Grade Group [GG] 2, or cT2b). All patients were diagnosed and followed up according to a contemporary scheme, including MRI and image-guided biopsies. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients met our inclusion criteria and the median follow-up was 56months. During follow-up, there were no cases of metastasis or death due to PCa, but 6 deaths due to competing causes. A total of 25 (44%) and 6 patients (11%) had definitive treatment and GG 3 reclassification during follow-up, respectively. In multivariable Cox hazard regression analysis, the risk of undergoing definitive treatment was significantly associated with PSA density>0.15 (HR: 4.82, 95% CI: 1.47 to 15; P=0.01) and PI-RADS 4-5 lesions on mpMRI (HR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.06 to 5.19; P=0.006). Interestingly, tumor burden (P=0.3) and GG (P=0.7) on biopsy were not associated with definitive treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

AS is a safe and valuable strategy for well-selected patients with favorable IR prostate cancer, with excellent oncological outcomes after five years' follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

[Early detection of prostate cancer: Towards a new paradigm?]

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a public health issue. The diagnostic strategy for PCa is well codified and assessed by digital rectal examination, PSA testing and multiparametric MRI, which may or may not lead to prostate biopsies. The formal benefit of organized PCa screening, studied more than 10 years ago at an international scale and for all incomers, is not demonstrated. However, diagnostic and therapeutic modalities have evolved since the pivotal studies. The contribution of MRI and targeted biopsies, the widespread use of active surveillance for unsignificant PCa, the improvement of surgical techniques and radiotherapy… have allowed a better selection of patients and strengthened the interest for an individualized approach, reducing the risk of overtreatment. Aiming to enhance coverage and access to screening for the population, the European Commission recently promoted the evaluation of an organized PCa screening strategy, including MRI. The lack of screening programs has become detrimental to the population and must shift towards an early detection policy adapted to the risk of each individual.

Active surveillance versus treatment in low-risk DCIS: Women's preferences in the LORD-trial

BACKGROUND

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive breast cancer (IBC), but most DCIS lesions remain indolent. However, guidelines recommend surgery, often supplemented by radiotherapy. This implies overtreatment of indolent DCIS. The non-randomised patient preference LORD-trial tests whether active surveillance (AS) for low-risk DCIS is safe, by giving women with low-risk DCIS a choice between AS and conventional treatment (CT). Here, we aim to describe how participants are distributed among both trial arms, identify their motives for their preference, and assess factors associated with their choice.

METHODS

Data were extracted from baseline questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the distribution and characteristics of participants; thematic analyses to extract self-reported reasons for the choice of trial arm, and multivariable logistic regression analyses to investigate associations between patient characteristics and chosen trial arm.

RESULTS

Of 377 women included, 76% chose AS and 24% CT. Most frequently cited reasons for AS were "treatment is not (yet) necessary" (59%) and trust in the AS-plan (39%). Reasons for CT were cancer worry (51%) and perceived certainty (29%). Women opting for AS more often had lower educational levels (OR 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.93) and more often reported experiencing shared decision making (OR 2.71; 95% CI, 1.37-5.37) than women choosing CT.

CONCLUSION

The LORD-trial is the first to offer women with low-risk DCIS a choice between CT and AS. Most women opted for AS and reported high levels of trust in the safety of AS. Their preferences highlight the necessity to establish the safety of AS for low-risk DCIS.

Active surveillance should not be routinely considered in ISUP grade group 2 prostate cancer

Active surveillance has been proposed as a therapeutic option in selected intermediate risk patients with biopsy grade group 2 prostate cancer. However, its oncologic safety in this setting is debated. Therefore, we conducted a non-systematic literature research of contemporary surveillance protocols including patients with grade group 2 disease to collect the most recent evidence in this setting. Although no randomized controlled trial compared curative-intent treatments, namely radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy vs. active surveillance in patients with grade group 2 disease, surgery is associated with a benefit in terms of disease control and survival when compared to expectant management in the intermediate risk setting. Patients with grade group 2 on active surveillance were at higher risk of disease progression and treatment compared to their grade group 1 counterparts. Up to 50% of those patients were eventually treated at 5 years, and the metastases-free survival rate was as low as 85% at 15-years. When considering low- and intermediate risk patients treated with radical prostatectomy, grade group 2 was one of the strongest predictors of grade upgrading and adverse features. Available data is insufficient to support the oncologic safety of active surveillance in all men with grade group 2 prostate cancer. Therefore, those patients should be counselled regarding the oncologic efficacy of upfront active treatment modalities and the lack of robust long-term data supporting the safety of active surveillance in this setting.

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.

The direct prognosis comparison of 125I low-dose-rate brachytherapy versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes after performing radical prostatectomy (RP) or low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR) for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis on 361 IRPC patients who underwent treatment in Peking Union Medical College Hospital from January 2014 to August 2021, of which 160 underwent RP and 201 underwent Iodine-125 LDR. Patients were followed in clinic monthly during the first three months and at three-month intervals thereafter. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to predict biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), clinical relapse-free survival (cRFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Biochemical recurrence was defined using the Phoenix definition for LDR and the surgical definition for RP. The log-rank test was applied to compare bRFS between the two modalities, and Cox regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with bRFS.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 54 months for RP and 69 months for LDR. According to log-rank test, the differences of 5-year bRFS (70.2% vs 83.2%, P = 0.003) and 8-year bRFS (63.1% vs 68.9%, P < 0.001) between RP and LDR groups were statistically significant. Our results also indicated that there was no significant difference in terms of cRFS, CSS, or OS between the two groups. With multivariate analysis of the entire cohort, prostate volume ≤ 30 ml (P < 0.001), positive margin (P < 0.001), and percentage positive biopsy cores > 50% (P < 0.001) were independent factors suggestive of worse bRFS.

CONCLUSIONS

LDR is a reasonable treatment option for IRPC patients, yielding improved bRFS and equivalent rates of cRFS, CSS and OS when compared with RP.

Variations in the Uptake of Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer and Its Impact on Outcomes

Background

Regional differences in active surveillance (AS) uptake for prostate cancer (PC) illustrate an inequality in treatment strategies.

Objective

To examine the association between regional differences in AS uptake and transition to radical treatment, start of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), watchful waiting, or death.

Design setting and participants

A Swedish population-based cohort study was conducted including men in the National Prostate Cancer Register in Sweden with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk PC, starting AS from January 1, 2007 and continuing till December 31, 2019.

Intervention

Regional tradition of low, intermediate, or high proportions of immediate radical treatment.

Outcomes measurements and statistical analysis

Probabilities of transition from AS to radical treatment, start of ADT, watchful waiting, or death from other causes were assessed.

Results and limitations

We included 13 679 men. The median age was 66 yr, median PSA 5.1 ng/ml, and median follow-up 5.7 yr. Men from regions with a high AS uptake had a lower probability of transition to radical treatment (36%) than men from regions with a low AS uptake (40%; absolute difference 4.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-7.2), but not a higher probability of AS failure defined as the start of ADT (absolute difference 0.4%; 95% CI -0.7 to 1.4). There were no statistically significant differences in the probability of transition to watchful waiting or death from other causes. Limitations include uncertainty in the estimation of remaining lifetime and transition to watchful waiting.

Conclusions

A regional tradition of a high AS uptake is associated with a lower probability of transition to radical treatment, but not with AS failure. A low AS uptake suggests overtreatment.

Patient summary

There are considerable regional differences in active surveillance (AS) uptake for prostate cancer. This study compared the outcomes of AS in different regions and found no association between AS uptake and failure of AS; it suggests that a low AS uptake indicates overtreatment.

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.

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Past, Current, and Future Trends

In response to the rising incidence of indolent, low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to increased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in the 1990s, active surveillance (AS) emerged as a treatment modality to combat overtreatment by delaying or avoiding unnecessary definitive treatment and its associated morbidity. AS consists of regular monitoring of PSA levels, digital rectal exams, medical imaging, and prostate biopsies, so that definitive treatment is only offered when deemed necessary. This paper provides a narrative review of the evolution of AS since its inception and an overview of its current landscape and challenges. Although AS was initially only performed in a study setting, numerous studies have provided evidence for the safety and efficacy of AS which has led guidelines to recommend it as a treatment option for patients with low-risk PCa. For intermediate-risk disease, AS appears to be a viable option for those with favourable clinical characteristics. Over the years, the inclusion criteria, follow-up schedule and triggers for definitive treatment have evolved based on the results of various large AS cohorts. Given the burdensome nature of repeat biopsies, risk-based dynamic monitoring may further reduce overtreatment by avoiding repeat biopsies in selected patients.