Study Protocol for the DETECTIVE Study: An International Collaborative Study To Develop Consensus Statements for Deferred Treatment with Curative Intent for Localised Prostate Cancer

Navigating the evolving diagnostic and therapeutic landscape of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer

ABSTRACT

In this nonsystematic review of the literature, we explored the changing landscape of detection and treatment of low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Through emphasizing improved cancer assessment with histology classification and genomics, we investigated key developments in PCa detection and risk stratification. The pivotal role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the novel diagnostic pathway is examined, alongside the benefits and drawbacks of MRI-targeted biopsies for detection and tumor characterization. We also delved into treatment options, particularly active surveillance for intermediate-risk PCa. Outcomes are compared between intermediate- and low-risk patients, offering insights into tailored management. Surgical techniques, including Retzius-sparing surgery, precision prostatectomy, and partial prostatectomy for anterior cancer, are appraised. Each technique has the potential to enhance outcomes and minimize complications. Advancements in technology and radiobiology, including computed tomography (CT)/MRI imaging and positron emission tomography (PET) fusion, allow for precise dose adjustment and daily target monitoring with imaging-guided radiotherapy, opening new ways of tailoring patients' treatments. Finally, experimental therapeutic approaches such as focal therapy open new treatment frontiers, although they create new needs in tumor identification and tracking during and after the procedure.

Quantified treatment effect at the individual level is more indicative for personalized radical prostatectomy recommendation: implications for prostate cancer treatment using deep learning

BACKGROUND

There are potential uncertainties and overtreatment existing in radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa) patients, thus identifying optimal candidates is quite important.

PURPOSE

This study aims to establish a novel causal inference deep learning (DL) model to discern whether a patient can benefit more from RP and to identify heterogeneity in treatment responses among PCa patients.

METHODS

We introduce the Self-Normalizing Balanced individual treatment effect for survival data (SNB). Six models were trained to make individualized treatment recommendations for PCa patients. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to avoid treatment selection bias.

RESULTS

35,236 patients were included. Patients whose actual treatment was consistent with SNB recommendations had better survival outcomes than those who were inconsistent (multivariate hazard ratio (HR): 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.92; IPTW-adjusted HR: 0.77, 95% CI, 0.61-0.95; risk difference (RD): 3.80, 95% CI, 2.48-5.11; IPTW-adjusted RD: 2.17, 95% CI, 0.92-3.35; the difference in restricted mean survival time (dRMST): 3.81, 95% CI, 2.66-4.85; IPTW-adjusted dRMST: 3.23, 95% CI, 2.06-4.45). Keeping other covariates unchanged, patients with 1 ng/mL increase in PSA levels received RP caused 1.77 months increase in the time to 90% mortality, and the similar results could be found in age, Gleason score, tumor size, TNM stages, and metastasis status.

CONCLUSIONS

Our highly interpretable and reliable DL model (SNB) may identify patients with PCa who could benefit from RP, outperforming other models and clinical guidelines. Additionally, the DL-based treatment guidelines obtained can provide priori evidence for subsequent studies.

Does active surveillance avoid overtreatment in prostate cancer? Lessons learned from salvage radical prostatectomies

OBJECTIVE

Determine whether our institution´s active surveillance (AS) protocol is a suitable strategy to minimise prostate cancer overtreatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 516 patients on AS after prostate cancer diagnosis. Population divided into "per-protocol" vs "induced" AS depending on fulfilment of protocol´s inclusion criteria. Radical prostatectomies after AS were selected and stratified based on: reclassification, progression or patient anxiety. Clinicopathological features and biochemical relapse-free survival were studied. Primary endpoint was overtreatment ratio based on the presence of insignificant prostate cancer and adverse pathological features in the surgical specimen. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the biochemical relapse-free survival and compared with log-rank test.

RESULTS

304 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria; 100 proceeded to radical prostatectomy (31% "induced", 69% "per-protocol" AS). Surgery indications were reclassification, progression and anxiety in 66%, 18% and 16% of patients respectively. Rate of positive lymph nodes was higher in the progression group (11%) compared to reclassification and anxiety (5% and 0% respectively, P = .002). Positive surgical margins were more frequently reported in the progression cohort compared to reclassification (28% vs 20%). Median follow-up from diagnosis until last radical prostatectomy was 48.3 months (32.4-70). 3 year biochemical relapse-free survival in the salvage radical prostatectomy was 85.4% (95 CI 78.3-93.2). Insignificant cancer was noticed in 7% of patients (Epstein´s vs 24% Wolters´ criteria). Rate of patients with adverse pathological features was 36%.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients who underwent salvage surgery after AS were not overtreated. Radical prostatectomy should be considered a safe rescue treatment.

Characteristics and risk differences of different tumor size on localized prostate cancer: A retrospective cohort study in the SEER database

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the role of tumor size in predicting tumor risk for localized prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

Methods

Twenty‐five thousand, one hundred twenty‐seven men with PCa receiving RP from 2010 to 2015 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Kaplan–Meier plots and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to illustrate overall survival (OS) according to the tumor size. The tumor size was confirmed by postoperative pathology after RP.

Results

Among overall localized PCa, 84.6% were high‐risk PCa, 9.2% were intermediate‐risk PCa, and 6.2% were low‐risk PCa. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that tumor size ≥21 mm was an independent risk predict factor of low‐risk PCa (odds ratio [OR]: 11.940; 95% CI, 9.404–15.161; p < 0.001) and intermediate‐risk PCa (OR: 1.887; 95% CI, 1.586–2.245; p < 0.001). Tumor sizes ≤5 mm significantly correlated with high‐risk PCa (p < 0.001). Tumor size ≤5 mm had the worst OS in overall localized PCa and high‐risk PCa (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

In localized PCa, tumor sizes ≥21 mm may help predict low or intermediate‐risk PCa, while tumor sizes ≤5 mm might help predict high‐risk PCa. In clinical practice, we should be on high alert for patients with tumors size ≤5 mm due to its poor prognosis after RP.

Does active surveillance avoid overtreatment in prostate cancer? Lessons learned from salvage radical prostatectomies

OBJECTIVE

Determine whether our institution's active surveillance (AS) protocol is a suitable strategy to minimise prostate cancer overtreatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 516 patients on AS after prostate cancer diagnosis. Population divided into «per-protocol» vs «induced» AS depending on fulfilment of protocol's inclusion criteria. Radical prostatectomies after AS were selected and stratified based on reclassification, progression or patient anxiety. Clinicopathological features and biochemical relapse-free survival were studied. Primary endpoint was overtreatment ratio based on the presence of insignificant prostate cancer and adverse pathological features in the surgical specimen. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the biochemical relapse-free survival and compared with log-rank test.

RESULTS

304 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria; 100 proceeded to radical prostatectomy (31% «induced», 69% «per-protocol» AS). Surgery indications were reclassification, progression and anxiety in 66%, 18% and 16% of patients, respectively. Rate of positive lymph nodes was higher in the progression group (11%) compared to reclassification and anxiety (5% and 0%, respectively; P=.002). Positive surgical margins were more frequently reported in the progression cohort compared to reclassification (28% vs 20%). Median follow-up from diagnosis until last radical prostatectomy was 48.3months (32.4-70). Three year biochemical relapse-free survival in the salvage radical prostatectomy was 85.4% (95%CI: 78.3-93.2). Insignificant cancer was noticed in 7% of patients (Epstein's vs 24% Wolters' criteria). Rate of patients with adverse pathological features was 36%.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients who underwent salvage surgery after AS were not overtreated. Radical prostatectomy should be considered a safe rescue treatment.

Asking "Dr. Google" for a Second Opinion: The Devil Is in the Details

Considering how easy it is to access the Internet, it is natural to wonder whether people use this tool and which information they look for. Web searches might have an advantageous and/or harmful impact on patient-doctor decision-making. Google Trends (GT) is a free, easily accessible tool that enables analysis of worldwide "big data" on the relative popularity of a given search term over a specific period. GT is not a perfect tool due to its underlying limitations, and an appropriate examination is mandatory to elude misleading interpretation.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel Consensus Statements for Deferred Treatment with Curative Intent for Localised Prostate Cancer from an International Collaborative Study (DETECTIVE Study)

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty in deferred active treatment (DAT) programmes, regarding patient selection, follow-up and monitoring, reclassification, and which outcome measures should be prioritised.

OBJECTIVE

To develop consensus statements for all domains of DAT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A protocol-driven, three phase study was undertaken by the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Association of Urology Section of Urological Research (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel in conjunction with partner organisations, including the following: (1) a systematic review to describe heterogeneity across all domains; (2) a two-round Delphi survey involving a large, international panel of stakeholders, including healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients; and (3) a consensus group meeting attended by stakeholder group representatives. Robust methods regarding what constituted the consensus were strictly followed.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 109 HCPs and 16 patients completed both survey rounds. Of 129 statements in the survey, consensus was achieved in 66 (51%); the rest of the statements were discussed and voted on in the consensus meeting by 32 HCPs and three patients, where consensus was achieved in additional 27 statements (43%). Overall, 93 statements (72%) achieved consensus in the project. Some uncertainties remained regarding clinically important thresholds for disease extent on biopsy in low-risk disease, and the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in determining disease stage and aggressiveness as a criterion for inclusion and exclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus statements and the findings are expected to guide and inform routine clinical practice and research, until higher levels of evidence emerge through prospective comparative studies and clinical trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We undertook a project aimed at standardising the elements of practice in active surveillance programmes for early localised prostate cancer because currently there is great variation and uncertainty regarding how best to conduct them. The project involved large numbers of healthcare practitioners and patients using a survey and face-to-face meeting, in order to achieve agreement (ie, consensus) regarding best practice, which will provide guidance to clinicians and researchers.