Outcome of Primary Versus Deferred Radical Prostatectomy in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden Follow-Up Study

Adequacy of clinical guideline recommendations for patients with low-risk cancer managed with monitoring: systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to summarize national and international guidelines that made recommendations for monitoring patients diagnosed with low-risk cancer. It appraised the quality of guidelines and determined whether the guidelines adequately identified patients for monitoring, specified which tests to use, defined monitoring intervals, and stated triggers for further intervention. It then assessed the evidence to support each recommendation.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, we searched PubMed and Turning Research into Practice databases for national and international guidelines' that were written in English and developed or updated between 2012 and 2023. Quality of individual guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II tool.

RESULTS

Across the 41 published guidelines, 48 different recommendations were identified: 15 (31%) for prostate cancer, 11 (23%) for renal cancer, 6 (12.5%) for thyroid cancer, and 10 (21%) for blood cancer. The remaining 6 (12.5%) were for brain, gastrointestinal, oral cavity, bone and pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma cancer. When combining all guidelines, 48 (100%) stated which patients qualify for monitoring, 31 (65%) specified which tests to use, 25 (52%) provided recommendations for surveillance intervals, and 23 (48%) outlined triggers to initiate intervention. Across all cancer sites, there was a strong positive trend with higher levels of evidence being associated with an increased likelihood of a recommendation being specific (P = 0.001) and the evidence for intervals was based on expert opinion or other guidance.

CONCLUSION

With the exception of prostate cancer, the evidence base for monitoring low-risk cancer is weak and consequently recommendations in clinical guidelines are inconsistent. There is a lack of direct evidence to support monitoring recommendations in the literature making guideline developers reliant on expert opinion, alternative guidelines, or indirect or nonspecific evidence.

Adverse Pathological Findings at Radical Prostatectomy following Active Surveillance: Results from the Movember GAP3 Cohort

Background: Little is known about the consequences of delaying radical prostatectomy (RP) after Active Surveillance (AS) according to stringent or wider entry criteria. We investigated the association between inclusion criteria and rates, and timing of adverse pathological findings (APFs) among patients in GAP3 cohorts. Methods: APFs (GG ≥ 3, pT ≥ 3, pN > 0 and positive surgical margins [R1]) were accounted for in very low-risk (VLR: grade group [GG] 1, cT1, positive cores < 3, PSA < 10 ng/mL, PSA density [PSAD] < 0.15 ng/mL/cm3) and low-risk (LR: GG1, cT1-2, PSA ≤ 10 ng/mL) patients undergoing subsequent RP. The Kaplan−Meier method and log−rank test analyzed APF-free survival. Stratified mixed effects models analyzed association. Results: Out of 21,169 patients on AS, 1742 (VLR: 721; LR: 1021) underwent delayed RP. Most (60.8%) did not have APFs. APFs occurred more frequently (44.6% vs. 31.7%; OR 1.54, p < 0.001) and earlier (median time: 40.3 vs. 62.6 months; p < 0.001) in LR patients, and consisted of pT ≥ 3 (OR 1.47, p = 0.013) or R1 (OR 1.80, p < 0.001), but not of GG ≥ 3 or node involvement. Age (OR 1.05, p < 0.001), PSAD (OR 23.21, p = 0.003), and number of positive cores (OR 1.16, p = 0.004) were independently associated with APFs. Conclusions: AS stands as a safe option for low-risk patients, and most do not have APFs at surgery. Wider entry criteria are associated with pT3 and R1. The prognostic implications remain uncertain.

Effects of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy and Active Surveillance on Localised Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

We reviewed the evidence available for postponing or delaying cancer surgery for localised prostate cancer. Watchful waiting is an acceptable option in low-risk patients. Evidence is uncertain in postponing surgery, but conservative estimates suggest delays of over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively, can lead to worse survival outcomes. Neoadjuvant therapy can shrink the tumours prior to surgery and can be a useful adjunct in delaying surgery for, at the most, 3 months.

Abstract

External factors, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to cancellations and backlogs of cancer surgeries. The effects of these delays are unclear. This study summarised the evidence surrounding expectant management, delay radical prostatectomy (RP), and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) compared to immediate RP. MEDLINE and EMBASE was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies pertaining to the review question. Risks of biases (RoB) were evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. A total of 57 studies were included. Meta-analysis of four RCTs found overall survival and cancer-specific survival were significantly worsened amongst intermediate-risk patients undergoing active monitoring, observation, or watchful waiting but not in low- and high-risk patients. Evidence from 33 observational studies comparing delayed RP and immediate RP is contradictory. However, conservative estimates of delays over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively, have been associated with significantly worse pathological and oncological outcomes in individual studies. In 11 RCTs, a 3-month course of NHT has been shown to improve pathological outcomes in most patients, but its effect on oncological outcomes is apparently limited.

Impact of time from diagnosis to treatment on erectile function outcomes after radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Concerns exist about the effect of delaying treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) regarding both oncological and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of time from diagnosis to RP on post-operative erectile function (EF) outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed data for 827 patients treated with RP at a single center from 2002 to 2017. The International Index of Erectile Function-EF (IIEF-EF) was compiled by every patient (EF recovery equal to IIEF-EF ≥ 22). Time from diagnosis to treatment was defined as the interval between biopsy and RP. Cox regression analysis was used to test the impact of time to surgery on the probability of EF recovery. Kaplan-Meier analysis compared the cumulative incidence of EF recovery according to time from diagnosis to surgery. The impact of time to RP on EF was tested also in a sub-cohort of patients eligible for active surveillance (AS).

RESULTS

Overall, low-, intermediate-, and high-risk PCa was found in 306 (37%), 422 (51%), and 99 (12%) patients. Of them, 148 (17.9%) would have been eligible for AS. A total of 152 (18%) and 22 (2.7%) patients were treated after 6 and 12 months from diagnosis. The overall probability of EF recovery was 32% (95% CI: 29-36) at 24 months. Cox regression analysis showed that time from biopsy to surgery was not associated with a different chance of EF recovery (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.97-1.05; p = 0.7). At Kaplan-Meier analysis, the cumulative incidence of EF recovery did not differ between patients treated within 6 months, from 6 to 12 months and after 12 months from diagnosis. Similar findings were obtained for patients eligible for AS.

DISCUSSION

Patients may be reassured regarding their chance of post-operative EF recovery in the case of a delayed surgical treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Delaying surgery after PCa diagnosis does not affect post-operative EF recovery outcomes regardless of oncological risk.

Impact of time from biopsy to surgery on complications, functional and oncologic outcomes following radical prostatectomy

Introduction:

To determine the impact of time from biopsy to surgery on outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) as the optimal interval between prostate biopsy and RP is unknown.

Material and methods:

We identified 7, 350 men who underwent RP at our institution between 1994 and 2012 and had a prostate biopsy within one year of surgery. Patients were grouped into five time intervals for analysis: ≤ 3 weeks, 4-6 weeks, 7-12 weeks, 12-26 weeks, and > 26 weeks. Oncologic outcomes were stratified by NCCN disease risk for comparison. The associations of time interval with clinicopathologic features and survival were evaluated using multivariate logistic and Cox regression analyses.

Results:

Median time from biopsy to surgery was 61 days (IQR 37, 84). Median follow-up after RP was 7.1 years (IQR 4.2, 11.7) while the overall perioperative complication rate was 19.7% (1,448/7,350). Adjusting for pre-operative variables, men waiting 12-26 weeks until RP had the highest likelihood of nerve sparing (OR: 1.45, p = 0.02) while those in the 4-6 week group had higher overall complications (OR: 1.33, p = 0.01). High risk men waiting more than 6 months had higher rates of biochemical recurrence (HR: 3.38, p = 0.05). Limitations include the retrospective design.

Conclusions:

Surgery in the 4-6 week time period after biopsy is associated with higher complications. There appears to be increased biochemical recurrence rates in delaying RP after biopsy, for men with both low and high risk disease.

Does time from diagnosis to treatment of high- or very-high-risk prostate cancer affect outcome?

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether time from diagnosis to treatment impacted outcomes in a multicentre cohort of high- and very-high-risk (VHR) patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 1392 patients from three tertiary centres who underwent RP for either high-risk or VHR disease, from 2005 to 2015, were identified. The cohort was divided into tertiles based on time from diagnostic biopsy to RP. Cumulative incidence of biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastasis, and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) were calculated for each tertile. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate for differences in all-cause mortality (ACM) amongst tertiles. Competing risks regression models, as well as Cox proportional hazards regression models, were fitted to assess the association between time-to-event outcomes and patient characteristics.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time from biopsy to RP was 68 (50-94) days. The median (IQR) follow-up was 31 (12.1-55.7) months. The cumulative incidence of BCR (P = 0.14), metastasis (P = 0.15), and PCSM (P = 0.69) did not differ amongst time-to-treatment tertiles of VHR patients. Also, Kaplan-Meier estimates of ACM (P = 0.53) did not differ amongst time-to-treatment tertiles. Similarly, BCR, metastasis, PCSM, and ACM did not significantly differ amongst time-to-treatment tertiles in multivariable modelling.

CONCLUSION

In this pooled meta-dataset of patients with high-risk or VHR prostate cancer, time from diagnosis to RP did not appear to significantly contribute to differences in clinical outcomes. This finding supports the safety of enrollment of such patients into neoadjuvant clinical trials.

Is time from diagnosis to radical prostatectomy associated with oncological outcomes?

PURPOSE

To study the association between time from diagnosis to radical prostatectomy (RP-interval) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), histological findings in the RP-specimen and failure after RP (RP-failure).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) in 2001-2010 and prostatectomized within 180 days of biopsy were identified in the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Norwegian Prostate Cancer Registry. Patients were stratified according to risk groups and RP-intervals of 0-60, 61-90, 91-120 and 121-180 days. Aalen-Johansen and Kaplan-Meier methods estimated curves for PCSM, RP-failure and overall mortality. Multivariable Cox regressions and Chi-square tests were used to evaluate the impact of RP-interval on outcomes.

RESULTS

In 5163 eligible patients, the median time from diagnosis to RP was 93 days (range 1-180). Risk group distribution was similar in all RP-interval groups. With almost eight years of observation, no association was found between RP-interval and PCSM in the intermediate-or high-risk groups. Increasing RP-interval did not increase the rate of adverse histological outcomes or incidence of RP-failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing RP-interval up to 180 days was not associated with adverse oncological outcomes at eight years follow-up. These findings should be considered when planning for prostatectomy.

[Does the delay from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy influence the risk of biochemical recurrence?]

INTRODUCTION

The influence of the delay between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy for patients with localized prostate cancer is controversial. The objective of this study was to establish a time limit between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy beyond which the risks of upgradging and biochemical recurrence (BCR) are increased.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between January 2013 and January 2017, a retrospective analysis of the clinical, biological and histological data of 513 patients treated with radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer was performed in a single center. The primary endpoint was the assessment of the risk of BCR by the difference between post-biopsy USCF-CAPRA and post-surgical CAPRA-S scores. The secondary endpoint was the evaluation of the upgrading by the difference between the Gleason score on biopsy and on surgical specimen. The risks of BCR and upgrading were compared by Student test according to different delays between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy. The shortest delays for which a significant difference was found were reported.

RESULTS

In this study, 513 patients were included. The median age at the time of the biopsy was 65 years (IQR: 60-69). The median preoperative PSA was 7.30ng/mL (IQR: 5.60-9.94). The median time between biopsy and surgery was 108 days (IQR: 86-141). For the entire cohort, the risk of BCR was significantly higher above a threshold of 90 days (P=0.039). No threshold was found for Gleason 6(3+3) patients. A 90-day threshold was found for Gleason 7(3+4) patients (P=0.038). Gleason patients≥8 had more upgrading beyond a 60-day threshold (P=0.040).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that after a 3 months delay, the risk of BCR was significantly higher for localized prostate cancer. It seemed possible to extend this period for low-risk patients, whereas it seemed necessary to keep it for intermediate-risks and to reduce it to 2 months for high-risks.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

No clinical significance of the time interval between biopsy and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer on biochemical recurrence: a propensity score matching analysis

Purpose

To investigate the impact of the time interval (TI) between prostate biopsy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 793 consecutive patients who were treated with RARP at our institution. Patients were divided into three groups, according to TI, to compare BCR-free survival (BCRFS) rates: Group 1 (n = 196), TI < 3 months; Group 2 (n = 513), 3 ≤ TI < 6 months; Group 3 (n = 84), TI ≥ 6 months. Eighty-three patients with TI ≥ 6 months were matched with an equal number of patients with TI < 6 months based on propensity scores by using four preoperative factors: prostate-specific antigen (PSA), primary (pGS) and secondary (sGS) Gleason score and positive prostate biopsy.

Results

The 5-year BCRFS rates for TI Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 76%, 80.7% and 82.6% (P = 0.99), respectively. The multivariate analysis revealed that PSA, pGS, sGS and a positive prostate biopsy were independent preoperative risk factors for BCR. The propensity adjusted 5-year BCRFS for patients with TI ≥ 6 months was 84.0%. This was not worse than that of patients with TI < 6 months (71.0%, P = 0.18).

Conclusions

In our cohorts, a delay in the time from biopsy to RARP did not significantly affect recurrence. Therefore, hasty treatment decisions are unnecessary for at least 6 months after diagnosis of early prostate cancer.

Does surgical delay for radical prostatectomy affect biochemical recurrence? A retrospective analysis from a Canadian cohort

AIM

We sought to explore the impact of surgical wait time (SWT) to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on biochemical recurrence (BCR).

METHOD

Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database between 2006 and 2015 was conducted on all RARP cases. SWT was defined as period from prostate biopsy to surgery. Primary outcome was the impact on BCR, which was defined as two consecutive PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/dl, or salvage external beam radiation therapy and/or salvage androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were stratified according to D'Amico risk categories. Univariable analysis (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA) with a Cox proportional hazards regression model were used to evaluate the effect of SWT and other predictive factors on BCR, in each D'Amico risk group and on the overall collective sample.

RESULTS

Patients eligible for analysis were 619. Mean SWT was 153, 169, 150, and 125 days, for overall, low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively. Multivariate analysis on the overall cohort did not show a significant relation between SWT and BCR. On subgroup analysis of D'Amico risk group, SWT was positively correlated to BCR for high-risk group (p = 0.001). On threshold analysis, cut-off was found to be 90 days. SWT did not significantly affect BCR on UVA and MVA in the low- and intermediate-risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Increased delay to surgery could affect the BCR, as there was a positive association in high-risk group. Further studies with longer follow-up are necessary to assess the impact of wait time on BCR, cancer specific survival and overall survival.

Does surgical delay for radical prostatectomy affect patient pathological outcome? A retrospective analysis from a Canadian cohort

INTRODUCTION

We sought to assess the impact of surgical wait time (SWT) to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on final pathological outcome.

METHODS

A retrospective review of RARP patient records operated between 2006 and 2015 was conducted. SWT was defined as period from prostate biopsy to surgery. Primary outcome was the impact on postoperative Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA-S) score. Patients were stratified according to D'Amico risk categories. Univariate analysis (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) analysis with a generalized linear model was used to evaluate the effect of SWT and other predictive factors on pathological outcome in individual risk group and on the overall sample.

RESULTS

A total of 835 patients were eligible for analysis. Mean SWT was significantly different between the three D'Amico groups, with mean SWT of 180.22 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 169.03; 191.41), 159.14 days (95% CI 152.38; 165.90), and 138.96 days (95% CI 124.60; 153.33) for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively (p<0.001). After stratification by D'Amico risk group, no significant association was observed between SWT and CAPRA-S score in the three risk categories on UVA and MVA. Predictors of higher CAPRA-S score in the multivariable model in the overall cohort were: older age (p=0.014), biopsy Gleason score (p<0.001), percentage of positive cores (p<0.001), and clinical stage (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study evaluating SWT for RARP in a Canadian socialized system, increased delay for surgery does not appear to impact the pathological outcome. Further studies are required to evaluate the impact of wait time on biochemical recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival.

[Prevalence and diversity of management of prostate cancer patients classified as low risk using D'Amico group or Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score: A French multicenter study]

OBJECTIVES

Currently, the French High Authority for Health does not recommend mass screening for prostate cancer (PCa), due to the risk of over-treatment, notably of low risk patients. Our study is intended to reflect the therapeutic attitudes for the management of patients classified as low risk of progression in French clinical centers.

METHODS

For all positive prostate biopsies performed during 2012 and 2013 in five French departments of urology, clinicopathological characteristics required to calculate the d'Amico risk group and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score were filled. Information on the first treatment of "low risk" patients was collected.

RESULTS

A total of 1035 patients were included, with a median age at diagnosis of 66 years old. According to d'Amico and CAPRA classifications, 30.4% and 35.0% of patients were at low, 34.5% and 33.2% at intermediate, 35.1% and 31.8% at high risk. The diagnosis severity increased with age (P<0.0001). The main treatment for low risk patients was radical prostatectomy (41.6% and 42.0% for d'Amico and CAPRA, respectively), but active surveillance was the most frequent treatment if diagnosed after 75 years old. The management of low risk patients varied significantly between centers (P<0.0001), according to the therapeutic platforms available within the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

In absence of strong progression predictor, the management of low risk PCa remains based on center habits and local therapeutic platforms. New predictive markers, such as multiparametric MRI or molecular tests, are needed to guide rational management of low risk PCa.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Evaluating the effect of time from prostate cancer diagnosis to radical prostatectomy on cancer control: Can surgery be postponed safely?

OBJECTIVE

To test the prognostic role of treatment delay in patients affected by prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 2,653 patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) at a single institution between 2006 and 2011. The evaluated outcomes were biochemical recurrence (BCR) and clinical recurrence (CR). Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to test the association between time from diagnosis to RP and oncological outcomes. Nonparametric curve fitting methods were used to graphically explore the relationship between time from diagnosis to RP and oncological outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were repeated in the subgroups of low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients.

RESULTS

At median follow-up of 56 months (interquartile range: 26, 92), 283 patients experienced BCR, and 84 patients developed CR. Median time from PCa diagnosis to surgery was 2.8 months (interquartile range: 1.6, 4.7). At multivariable Cox regression analysis, time from biopsy to RP was significantly associated with an increased risk of BCR (hazard ratio = 1.02, P = 0.0005) and CR (hazard ratio = 1.03, P = 0.0002). Using Nonparametric curve fitting methods, a significant increased risk of BCR and CR after approximately 18 months was observed. However, when sensitivity analyses were repeated according to risk groups, this effect was maintained in high-risk patients only, and such time interval was reduced to 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the overall trend on higher rate of cancer relapse after RP, the effect of treatment delay from biopsy to RP was significantly evident in high-risk patients only. Even in high-risk patients surgical treatment can be postponed safely, but not beyond the 12-month landmark.

Immediate versus delayed prostatectomy: Nationwide population-based study (.)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of immediate versus delayed radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with low-grade prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included a nationwide population-based cohort in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden, of 7608 men with clinically localized, biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer who underwent immediate or delayed RP in 1997-2007. Multivariable models compared RP pathology, use of salvage radiotherapy and prostate cancer mortality based on timing of RP (< 1, 1-2 or >2 years after diagnosis). Median follow-up was 8.1 years.

RESULTS

Men undergoing RP more than 2 years after diagnosis had a higher risk of Gleason upgrading [odds ratio 2.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.34-3.68] and an increased risk of salvage radiotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 1.90, 95% CI 1.41-2.55], but no significant increase in prostate cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.85, 95% CI 0.57-5.99). In competing risk analysis, 7 year prostate cancer-specific cumulative mortality was similar, at less than 1%, for immediate RP and active surveillance regardless of later intervention. Limitations of this study include the lack of data on follow-up biopsies and the limited follow-up time.

CONCLUSION

Men undergoing RP more than 2 years after diagnosis had more adverse pathological features and second line therapy, highlighting the trade-off in deferring immediate curative therapy. However, men with delayed RP constitute a minority with higher risk cancer among the much larger group of low-risk men initially surveilled, and the overall risk of prostate cancer mortality at 7 years was similarly low with immediate RP or active surveillance.

Effects of Time to Treatment on Biochemical and Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Prostate Cancer Treated With Definitive Radiation

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate if time to treatment (TTT) has an effect on outcomes for patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included 4064 patients (1549 low-risk, 1612 intermediate-risk, and 903 high-risk) treated with EBRT. For each National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group, TTT (defined as the time between initial positive prostate biopsy and start of RT) was analyzed in 4 intervals: < 3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-24 months. We recorded the use of androgen deprivation therapy among patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease.

RESULTS

The median TTT was 3.3 months (range, 0.6-23.5 months), and it was similar for each risk group (range, 3.3-3.4 months). The median follow up was 64 months. There were no significant differences in biochemical failure, distant metastasis, or overall survival for patients with TTT < 3, 3-6, 6-9, or 9-24 months for each risk group. There were also no significant differences in the outcomes at 5 years when patients with TTT > 3.3 months were compared with those with TTT ≤ 3.3 months for each risk group. For high-risk men, 328 of 450 (72.9%) with TTT > 3.3 months were on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus 299 of 453 (66%) with TTT ≤ 3.3 months. Among men with high-risk cancer treated without ADT, there remained no significant difference in outcomes between TTT > 3.3 months and TTT ≤ 3.3 months.

CONCLUSION

TTT was not associated with significant differences in outcomes among each risk group of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT. Among the high-risk patients, there were no observed detriments in outcomes with TTT > 3.3 months regardless of androgen deprivation therapy use.

Causes of death in men with localized prostate cancer: a nationwide, population-based study

OBJECTIVE

To detail the distribution of causes of death from localized prostate cancer (PCa).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The database PCBase Sweden links the Swedish National Prostate Cancer Register with other nationwide population-based healthcare registers. We selected all 57 187 men diagnosed with localized PCa between 1997 and 2009 and their 114 374 PCa-free control subjects, matched according to age and county of residence. Mortality was calculated using competing risk regression analyses, taking into account PCa risk category, age and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI).

RESULTS

In men with low-risk PCa, all-cause mortality was lower compared with that in corresponding PCa-free men: 10-year all-cause mortality was 18% for men diagnosed at age 70 years, with a CCI score of 0, and 21% among corresponding control subjects. Of these cases, 31% died from cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with 37% of the corresponding control subjects. For men with low-risk PCa, 10-year PCa-mortality was 0.4, 1 and 3% when diagnosed at age 50, 60 and 70 years, respectively. PCa was the third most common cause of death (18%), after CVD (31%) and other cancers (30%). By contrast, PCa was the most common cause of death in men with intermediate- and high-risk localized PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

Men with low-risk PCa had lower all-cause mortality than PCa-free men because of lower CVD mortality, driven by early detection selection; however, for men with intermediate- or high-risk disease, the rate of PCa death was substantial, irrespective of CCI score, and this was even more pronounced for those diagnosed at age 50 or 60 years.

[Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer]

Autopsy studies have confirmed the high prevalence of latent prostate cancer; however, only a certain portion of patients require definite treatment. Active surveillance is one of the treatment options which, according to national and international guidelines, should be offered to patients with newly diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer. Prostate cancer-specific survival is high in these patients; therefore, curative treatment, such as radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy may be initially deferred in order to avoid therapy-related side effects. In order to qualify for active surveillance, strict inclusion criteria have to be met; nevertheless, the reliable identification of low-risk prostate cancer patients is not always possible. Patients under active surveillance are followed up regularly with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, digital rectal examination (DRE) and repeat prostate biopsies. Due to the heterogeneity of primary prostate tumors precise molecular diagnostic techniques could allow individualized treatment strategies in the future.

Delay from biopsy to radical prostatectomy influences the rate of adverse pathologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine maximum wait times between biopsy diagnosis and surgery for localized prostate cancer, beyond which the rate of adverse pathologic outcomes is increased.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 4,610 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy between 1990 and 2011. Patients were stratified by biopsy Gleason score and PSA value. For each stratification, χ2 analysis was used to determine the smallest 15-day multiple of surgical delay (e.g., 15, 30, 45…180 days) for which adverse pathologic outcomes were significantly more likely after the time interval than before. Adverse outcomes were defined as positive surgical margins, upgrading from biopsy, upstaging, seminal vesicle invasion, or positive lymph nodes.

RESULTS

Two thousand two hundred twelve patients met inclusion criteria. Median delay was 64 days (mean 76, SD 47). One thousand six hundred seventy-five (75.7%), 537 (24.3%), and 60 (2.7%) patients had delays of <=90, >90, and >180 days, respectively. Twenty-six percent were upgraded on final pathology and 23% were upstaged. The positive surgical margin rate was 24.2% and the positive lymph node rate was 1.1%. Significant increases in the proportion of adverse pathological outcomes were found beyond 75 days in the overall cohort (P = 0.03), 150 days for patients with Gleason <=6, and PSA 0-10 (P = 0.038), 60 days for patients with Gleason 7 and PSA >20 (P = 0.032), and 30 days for patients with Gleason 8-10 and PSA 11-20 (0.041).

CONCLUSION

In low-risk disease, there is a considerable but not unlimited surgical delay which will not adversely impact the rate of adverse pathologic features found. In higher risk disease, this time period is considerably shorter.

Development and clinical validation of an in situ biopsy-based multimarker assay for risk stratification in prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer aggressiveness and appropriate therapy are routinely determined following biopsy sampling. Current clinical and pathologic parameters are insufficient for accurate risk prediction leading primarily to overtreatment and also missed opportunities for curative therapy.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

An 8-biomarker proteomic assay for intact tissue biopsies predictive of prostate pathology was defined in a study of 381 patient biopsies with matched prostatectomy specimens. A second blinded study of 276 cases validated this assay's ability to distinguish "favorable" versus "nonfavorable" pathology independently and relative to current risk classification systems National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN and D'Amico).

RESULTS

A favorable biomarker risk score of ≤0.33, and a nonfavorable risk score of >0.80 (possible range between 0 and 1) were defined on "false-negative" and "false-positive" rates of 10% and 5%, respectively. At a risk score ≤0.33, predictive values for favorable pathology in very low-risk and low-risk NCCN and low-risk D'Amico groups were 95%, 81.5%, and 87.2%, respectively, higher than for these current risk classification groups themselves (80.3%, 63.8%, and 70.6%, respectively). The predictive value for nonfavorable pathology was 76.9% at biomarker risk scores >0.8 across all risk groups. Increased biomarker risk scores correlated with decreased frequency of favorable cases across all risk groups. The validation study met its two coprimary endpoints, separating favorable from nonfavorable pathology (AUC, 0.68; P < 0.0001; OR, 20.9) and GS-6 versus non-GS-6 pathology (AUC, 0.65; P < 0.0001; OR, 12.95).

CONCLUSIONS

The 8-biomarker assay provided individualized, independent prognostic information relative to current risk stratification systems, and may improve the precision of clinical decision making following prostate biopsy.

Does the time from biopsy to radical prostatectomy affect Gleason score upgrading in patients with clinical t1c prostate cancer?

PURPOSE

It is debated whether treatment delay worsens oncologic results in localized prostate cancer (PCa). Few studies have focused on the role of a delay between the time of biopsy and the time of surgery. Thus, we aimed to investigate the effect of the time period between biopsy and surgery on Gleason score upgrading (GSU).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 290 patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy in Ankara Training and Research Hospital were included in the study. The biopsy Gleason score, age, total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value, prostate volumes, and PSA density (PSAD) were analyzed in all patients. The patients were divided into two groups: patients with GSU (group 1) and patients without GSU (group 2). Variables having a p-value of ≤0.05 in the univariate analysis were selected and then evaluated by use of multivariate logistic regression models. Results were considered significant at p<0.05.

RESULTS

GSU occurred in 121 of 290 patients (41.7%). The mean age of the patients was 66.0±7.2 years in group 1 and 65.05±5.60 years in group 2 (p=0.18). The mean PSA values of groups 1 and 2 were 8.6±4.1 and 8.8±4.3 ng/dL, respectively. The mean prostate volumes of groups 1 and 2 were 43.8±14.1 and 59.5±29.8 mL, respectively. The PSAD of group 1 was significantly higher than that of group 2 (0.20 vs. 0.17, p=0.003). The mean time to surgery was shorter in group 2 (group 1, 52.2±22.6 days; group 2, 45.3±15.5 days; p=0.004). According to the logistic regression, time from biopsy to surgery is important in the prediction of GSU.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that the time period between biopsy and surgery is a significant factor that affects GSU in patients with clinically localized PCa.

Can delayed time to referral to a tertiary level urologist with an abnormal PSA level affect subsequent Gleason grade in the opportunistically screened population?

PURPOSE

There is growing conflict in the literature describing the effect of delayed treatment on outcomes following radical prostatectomy. There is also evidence to suggest progression of low-risk prostate cancer to develop higher grades and volumes of prostate cancer during active surveillance. It is unknown as to what affect a delay in referral of those men with abnormal screened-PSA levels have on subsequent Gleason grade.

METHODS

We identified 350 men through our rapid access prostate clinic who underwent TRUS biopsy for abnormal age-related PSA and/or abnormal clinical examination. Clinicopathological findings were compared for those with positive versus negative TRUS biopsies, and for those with initial delays in referral (<12 months, 12-18 months, and >18 months). We used ANOVA and Student's t-tests amongst other statistical tools to examine significance of clinical findings.

RESULTS

Of the 350 men who underwent TRUS biopsy, those with a delay in referral of 12 months or more were significantly associated with higher PSA titers, clinically palpable disease and likelihood of diagnosis with prostate cancer. A delay of 18 months or more led to a significantly higher risk of being diagnosed with a leading grade 4 prostate cancer, which was further supported using PSA velocity as a diagnostic tool (change >0.4 ng/ml/year).

CONCLUSION

We recommend that repeated asymptomatic abnormal age-related PSA readings and/or abnormal clinical examination in the screened population be referred without delay to a urologist for further assessment, enrolment into an active surveillance program or definitive subsequent treatment.

Fifteen-year mortality after radical prostatectomy: which factors are available for patient counselling?

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to establish 15-year postprostatectomy prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), explore the time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse and identify clinically available prognostic factors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From 1987 to 2004, 309 men (median age 62 years, range 40-74 years) were prostatectomized for localized prostate cancer at a tertiary referral cancer centre. Slightly modified D'Amico risk groups were identified. PSA relapse was defined as PSA ≥ 4 μg/l before 2000, and thereafter as PSA > 0.2 μg/l. Radical prostatectomy (RP) 3-12 months after diagnosis represented "deferred" RP. PCSM was assessed with competing risk modelling. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

After a median of 12 years, 41 men were dead from prostate cancer and 68 due to other causes [15-year PCSM 15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 10-19%], with no significant difference in PCSM between the low- and intermediate-risk groups, and the "conventional" high-risk group having 24% PCSM (95% CI 16-32%). PCSM was 33% (95% CI 20-46%) for men with two high-risk factors. The median time to PSA relapse (n = 152) was 5 (range 0-17) years, with a median of 7 (range 0-17) years' survival thereafter. Deferral of RP for up to 1 year had no impact on PCSM for all patients combined.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one in seven men with localized prostate cancer, prostatectomized before the PSA era, will die from the disease within the 15 years post-RP. Men with two high-risk criteria have a particularly poor prognosis. After PSA relapse the median survival is 7 years. The data on deferral of RP need confirmation, taking into account risk group allocation.

Pathological outcomes of Japanese men eligible for active surveillance after radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze the pathological features of prostatectomy specimens from patients with low-risk prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance (AS) and evaluate preoperative data suitable for predicting upstaged (≥pT3) or upgraded disease (Gleason score of ≥7), defined as 'reclassification'.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 521 consecutive radical prostatectomy procedures (January 2005 through to December 2011) performed at our institution without neoadjuvant hormonal therapy was performed. Eighty-four patients fulfilled the following criteria-clinical T1 or T2 disease, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of ≤10 ng/ml, one or two positive biopsies, and Gleason score of <7. Clinicopathological features at diagnosis were compared between patients with and without reclassification after radical prostatectomy.

RESULTS

Forty of 84 patients (47.6 %) had a Gleason score of ≥7, and 8 (9.5 %) had upstaged disease (≥pT3). Seven patients with upstaged disease also showed upgraded reclassification. Two patients with reclassification showed biochemical recurrence at 59 and 89 months after surgery, respectively. Preoperative parameters evaluated included age, PSA level, PSA density (PSAD), clinical T stage, and number and percentage of positive prostate cores. Among 82 patients with complete data, univariate analysis showed that PSAD (ng/ml(2)) was a significant parameter to discriminate patients with reclassified disease and those without reclassified disease (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that PSAD was the only independent variable to predict disease with reclassification (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative PSAD may be a good indicator for selecting patients eligible for AS in the Japanese population.

Delay to curative surgery greater than 12 weeks is associated with increased mortality in patients with colorectal and breast cancer but not lung or thyroid cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery for cancer is often delayed due to variety of patient-, provider-, and health system-related factors. However, impact of delayed surgery is not clear, and may vary among cancer types. We aimed to determine the impact of the delay from cancer diagnosis to potentially curative surgery on survival.

METHODS

Cohort study based on representative sample of patients (n = 7,529) with colorectal, breast, lung and thyroid cancer with local or regional disease who underwent potentially curative surgery as their first therapeutic modality within 1 year of cancer diagnosis. They were diagnosed in 2006 and followed for mortality until April 2011, a median follow-up of 4.7 years.

RESULTS

For colorectal and breast cancers, the adjusted hazard ratios (95 % confidence intervals) for all-cause mortality comparing a surgical delay beyond 12 weeks to performing surgery within weeks 1-4 after diagnosis were 2.65 (1.50-4.70) and 1.91 (1.06-3.49), respectively. No clear pattern of increased risk was observed with delays between 4 and 12 weeks, or for any delay in lung and thyroid cancers. Concordance between the area of the patient's residence and the hospital performing surgery, and the patient's income status were associated with delayed surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Delays to curative surgery beyond 12 weeks were associated with increased mortality in colorectal and breast cancers, suggesting that health provision services should be organized to avoid unnecessary treatment delays. Health care systems should also aim to reduce socioeconomic and geographic disparities and to guarantee equitable access to high quality cancer care.

Timing of curative treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Delaying definitive therapy unfavourably affects outcomes in many malignancies. Diagnostic, psychological, and logistical reasons but also active surveillance (AS) strategies can lead to treatment delay, an increase in the interval between the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer (PCa).

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarise the current literature on the impact of treatment delay on PCa oncologic outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive search of PubMed and Embase databases until 30 September 2012 was performed. Studies comparing pathologic, biochemical recurrence (BCR), and mortality outcomes between patients receiving direct and delayed curative treatment were included. Studies presenting single-arm results following AS were excluded.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventeen studies were included: 13 on radical prostatectomy, 3 on radiation therapy, and 1 combined both. A total of 34 517 PCa patients receiving radical local therapy between 1981 and 2009 were described. Some studies included low-risk PCa only; others included a wider spectrum of disease. Four studies found a significant effect of treatment delay on outcomes in multivariate analysis. Two included low-risk patients only, but it was unknown whether AS was applied or repeat biopsy triggered active therapy during AS. The two other studies found a negative effect on BCR rates of 2.5-9 mo delay in higher risk patients (respectively defined as any with T ≥ 2b, prostate-specific antigen >10, Gleason score >6, >34-50% positive cores; or D'Amico intermediate risk-group). All studies were retrospective and nonrandomised. Reasons for delay were not always clear, and time-to-event analyses may be subject to bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment delay of several months or even years does not appear to affect outcomes of men with low-risk PCa. Limited data suggest treatment delay may have an impact on men with non-low-risk PCa. Most AS protocols suggest a confirmatory biopsy to avoid delaying treatment in those who harbour higher risk disease that was initially misclassified.

Informed prostate cancer risk-adjusted testing: a new paradigm

• Currently there is significant confusion and polarisation about prostate cancer screening for both patients and physicians alike. • We propose a risk-adjusted testing programme, which would lead to fewer patients who need to be tested and treated to save a life and also eliminate inappropriate prostate-specific antigen testing in the elderly and patients with severe co-morbidities where there is no clear benefit.

Pathological findings at radical prostatectomy in patients initially managed by active surveillance: a comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of our analysis was to determine if delays in treatment caused by active surveillance result in significant pathological changes when patients no longer meet the criteria on repeat biopsy and to study whether or not these changes may affect treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Out of 207 men who were on active surveillance, 47 (23%) no longer met the criteria after one of the repeat biopsies. Twenty-two underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution and formed the main group (Group 1) of this study. One hundred sixty-four patients met the criteria for active surveillance but underwent immediate surgery. Of these patients, we selected 38 (23%) with the lowest predicted biochemical recurrence-free survival. These patients formed the comparison group (Group 2). Pathological features as well as postoperative biochemical outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Seven patients (32%) in Group 1 and four (11%) in Group 2 have predominantly high-grade cancer (i.e., ≥4/5 + 3) at pathology. The visually estimated percent of carcinoma was also higher in patients initially managed by active surveillance (median 12.5 vs. 5.0 in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, P = 0.009). Other pathological characteristics were similar in both groups. With limited duration of follow-up, postoperative biochemical recurrence-free survival did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study has demonstrated that both tumor grade and volume may increase during active surveillance. However, the clinical significance of these changes with respect to the outcomes of delayed treatment remains to be established.

Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer

Active surveillance (AS) is an important management strategy for men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The need for AS is increasing due to the awareness that many PCa are identified that show a low growth potential and therefore are likely to remain clinically asymptomatic during the lifetime of an individual. Currently there is no good method to prevent the overdiagnosis of indolent cancers upfront. During the last decade, several studies on AS around the world have made observations that feed the discussion on how to select and monitor these patients, how to proceed with the research to develop a better and more precise clinical definition of indolent cancers and how to manage men under AS clinically. Furthermore, patients' perspectives have become clearer, and quality of life studies give direction to the practical approach and care for patients and partners. This paper reflects the consensus on the state of the art and the future direction of AS, based on the Inside Track Conference "Active Surveillance for low risk prostate cancer" (Chairmen: C.H. Bangma, NL, and L. Klotz, CA; Co-Chairmen: L.J. Denis, BE, and C. Parker, UK; Scientific Coordinators: M. J. Roobol, NL, and E.W. Steyerberg, NL), organized by the European School of Oncology in collaboration with Europa Uomo in Rotterdam, the Netherlands in January 2012. Topics for discussion were the optimisation of patient selection based on indolent disease definition, the incorporation of therapeutic agents into AS programs, the optimisation of patient care, and the application of emerging technologies and biomarkers.

Does a surgeon's annual radical prostatectomy volume predict the risk of positive surgical margins and urinary incontinence at one-year follow-up? Findings from a prospective national study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the prevalence of positive surgical margins (PSM) and urinary incontinence (UI) in relation to surgeons' annual radical prostatectomy (RP) volume.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This national study prospectively assessed 521 preoperatively continent patients with prostate cancer (PCa), scheduled for RP by surgeons with high (>50), medium (20-50) or low annual volume (<20) at 14 urological departments in Norway. Patients responded to UI questions from the Expanded Composite prostate cancer index (EPIC-50) before and 1 year after RP. UI was defined as "use of pad(s)" and/or "a moderate or severe urinary leakage problem (ULP)". Preoperative prediction of PSMs and UI was explored in multivariate regression analyses with the following independent variables: surgeons' annual RP volume, type of hospital (university versus community), patient's health, sociodemographic features and PCa characteristics.

RESULTS

Based on histopathological reports, the overall PSM rate was 26%, with differences between the high- (18%), medium- (28%) and low-volume (44%) groups. Increasing PSM rates were predicted by surgeons belonging to the low- and medium-volume categories, prostate-specific antigen> 10 µg/l, Gleason score >7, patient age >65 years and <12 years of education. At 1-year follow-up 40% reported UI, without significant differences between the volume groups. Only 46% of those who used pad(s) experienced ULP. UI was predicted by clinical category ≥T2 and community type of hospital, but not by surgeons' annual RP volume. CONCLUSIONS. Preoperative counselling should take into account the relationship between surgeon's annual RP volume and PSM rate and the current knowledge about UI and ULP.

Is a treatment delay in radical prostatectomy safe in individuals with low-risk prostate cancer?

INTRODUCTION

Many patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (PCa) are presented with several treatment modalities, which may require time to understand these options before making an informed decision regarding treatment.

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of radical prostatectomy (RP) delay on postoperative functional outcomes and mortality in a North American population-based cohort.

METHODS

Overall, 17,153 men treated with RP for non-metastatic clinical stage T1-2, low-grade PCa between years 1995 and 2005 within the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare-linked database were abstracted.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The effect of treatment delay (from PCa diagnosis to RP of >3 months) on pathological upstaging at surgery (≥pT3) and postoperative functional outcomes (urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction) was examined using logistic regression analyses. The 10-year PCa mortality rates were computed using cumulative incidence rates.

RESULTS

Overall, 2,576 (15%) patients underwent RP > 3 months after diagnosis. A treatment delay of >3 months was associated with a 24% and 33% higher rate of erectile dysfunction diagnosis and procedure, respectively (both P ≤ 0.001). Treatment delay was also associated with 6% higher rate of urinary incontinence procedure (P = 0.01). Furthermore, a dose-response effect was detected with respect to increasing durations of RP delay (≤3 vs. 3-5 vs. 5-9 vs. ≥9 months) the rates of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence diagnoses/procedures. Treatment delay was not associated with pathological upstaging and PCa mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Customarily, the timing of RP following biopsy is dictated by tumor aggressiveness. In general, patients with more unfavorable characteristics are operated sooner. This may obliterate the potential detriments of delayed RP. The treatment delay between biopsy and RP may result in more extensive periprostatic tissue resection and may adversely affect postoperative continence and erectile function.

The impact of delaying radical nephrectomy for stage II or higher renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of surgical waiting time (SWT) on outcomes of patients who underwent radical nephrectomy for stage II or higher renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

METHODS

Of the 1,732 patients who underwent surgery for RCC between 1989 and 2007, medical records of 319 with clinical stage II or higher RCC without distant metastases were retrospectively reviewed. Ten patients with SWT greater than 3 months were excluded from analysis, and we compared pathological upstaging and survival rates between patients with SWT <1 month (234/319, 73.3 %) and 1-3 months (75/319, 23.5 %).

RESULTS

Clinicopathological characteristics between two groups were not different except the presence of symptom. The pathological upstaging was higher in patients with SWT of 1-3 months but statistically not significant. SWT of 1-3 months was not an independent predictor of pathological upstaging, recurrence-free survival (RFS; p = 0.896), or cancer-specific survival (CSS; p = 0.737). On subgroup analysis by TNM stage (cT2NxcM0 and cT3-4NxcM0), SWT of 1-3 months was not an independent predictor of pathological upstaging and was not associated with RFS or CSS. SWT, treated as a continuous variable, was also not an independent predictor of outcome in any subgroup. Similar results were found in symptomatic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of patients with prolonged SWT did not differ from those of most patients who underwent nephrectomy within 1 month. In patients with stage II or higher RCC who underwent nephrectomy within 3 months after diagnosis, prolonged SWT was not an independent predictor of pathological upstaging, RFS, or CSS.

Management of low (favourable)-risk prostate cancer

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Most men who are diagnosed with favourable-risk prostate cancer undergo some form of active intervention, despite evidence that treatment will not improve health outcomes for many. The decision to undergo treatment after diagnosis is, in part, related to the inability to precisely determine the long-term risk of harm without treatment. Nevertheless, physicians should consider patient age, overall health, and preferences for living with cancer and the potential side effects of curative treatments, before recommending a management option. This is especially important for older men, given the high level of evidence that those with low-risk disease are unlikely to accrue any benefit from curative intervention. What is known on the subject: Over treatment of favourable-risk prostate cancer is common, especially among older men. What does the study add: A review of the natural history of favourable-risk prostate cancer in the context of choices for management of the disease. • The management of favourable-risk prostate cancer is controversial, and in the absence of controlled trials to inform best practice, choices are driven by personal beliefs with resultant wide variation in practice patterns. • Men with favourable-risk prostate cancer diagnosed today often undergo treatments that will not improve overall health outcomes. • A shared-decision approach for selecting optimal management of favourable-risk disease should account for patient age, overall health, and preferences for living with cancer and the potential side effects of curative treatments.

Delay of surgery in men with low risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Treatment options for patients with low risk prostate cancer include radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and active surveillance. Among patients treated with radical prostatectomy, prior studies have demonstrated significantly higher biochemical progression rates with surgical delays of 6 months or greater. We determined the impact of surgical delay on radical prostatectomy outcomes specifically in low risk patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From our radical prostatectomy database we identified men who fulfilled the D'Amico low risk criteria (clinical stage T1c/T2a, prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml, and biopsy Gleason 6 or less). Pathological tumor features and biochemical progression rates were compared between men with and without surgical delay. We used Cox proportional hazards models to examine predictors of biochemical progression.

RESULTS

Of 1,111 men who fulfilled the D'Amico low risk criteria, those with a surgical delay of 6 months or more were significantly older, had a higher proportion of African American men, and a lower proportion of clinical stage T2a (vs T1). A surgical delay of 6 months or more was associated with a greater risk of high grade disease at prostatectomy (p = 0.001) and biochemical progression (p = 0.04). The progression-free survival rate was significantly lower among men with a surgical delay. On multivariate analysis with prostate specific antigen and clinical stage, surgical delays of 6 months or more were significantly and independently associated with time to biochemical progression.

CONCLUSIONS

In men who met the D'Amico low risk criteria, a surgical delay of 6 months or more was associated with significantly worse radical prostatectomy outcomes, including more pathology upgrading and a higher rate of biochemical progression. Low risk patients choosing to defer initial definitive therapy should be counseled regarding the possibility of worse treatment outcomes at a later date.