Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer

Mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes for management of prostate cancer: An updated view

Prostate cancer represents the second most prevalent form of cancer found in males, and stands as the fifth primary contributor to cancer-induced mortality on a global scale. Research has shown that transplanted mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) can migrate by homing to tumor sites in the body. In prostate cancer, researchers have explored the fact that MSC-based therapies (including genetically modified delivery vehicles or vectors) and MSC-derived exosomes are emerging as attractive options to improve the efficacy and safety of traditional cancer therapies. In addition, researchers have reported new insights into the application of extracellular vesicle (EV)-MSC therapy as a novel treatment option that could provide a more effective and targeted approach to prostate cancer treatment. Moreover, the new generation of exosomes, which contain biologically functional molecules as signal transducers between cells, can simultaneously deliver different therapeutic agents and induce an anti-tumor phenotype in immune cells and their recruitment to the tumor site. The results of the current research on the use of MSCs in the treatment of prostate cancer may be helpful to researchers and clinicians working in this field. Nevertheless, it is crucial to emphasize that although dual-role MSCs show promise as a therapeutic modality for managing prostate cancer, further investigation is imperative to comprehensively grasp their safety and effectiveness. Ongoing clinical trials are being conducted to assess the viability of MSCs in the management of prostate cancer. The results of these trials will help determine the viability of this approach. Based on the current literature, engineered MSCs-EV offer great potential for application in targeted tumor therapy.

Natural History of Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Managed With Watchful Waiting

Importance

It is uncertain to what extent watchful waiting (WW) in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) and a life expectancy of less than 10 years is associated with adverse consequences.

Objective

To report transitions to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), death from PCa, or death from other causes in men treated with a WW strategy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This nationwide, population-based cohort study included men with nonmetastatic PCa diagnosed since 2007 and registered in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden with WW as the primary treatment strategy and with life expectancy less than 10 years. Life expectancy was calculated based on age, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and a drug comorbidity index. Observed state transition models complemented observed data to extend follow-up to more than 20 years. Analyses were performed between 2022 and 2023.

Exposure

Nonmetastatic PCa.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Transitions to ADT, CRPC, death from PCa, and death from other causes were measured using state transition modeling.

Results

The sample included 5234 men (median [IQR] age at diagnosis, 81 [79-84] years). After 5 years, 954 men with low-risk PCa (66.2%) and 740 with high-risk PCa (36.1%) were still alive and not receiving ADT. At 10 years, the corresponding proportions were 25.5% (n = 367) and 10.4% (n = 213), respectively. After 10 years, 59 men with low-risk PCa (4.1%) and 221 with high-risk PCa (10.8%) had transitioned to CRPC. Ten years after diagnosis, 1330 deaths in the low-risk group (92.3%) and 1724 in the high-risk group (84.1%) were from causes other than PCa.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that the WW management strategy is appropriate for minimizing adverse consequences of PCa in men with a baseline life expectancy of less than 10 years.

Influential Factors Impacting Treatment Decision-making and Decision Regret in Patients with Localized or Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

CONTEXT

Treatment decision-making (TDM) for patients with localized (LPC) or locally advanced (LAPC) prostate cancer is complex, and post-treatment decision regret (DR) is common. The factors driving TDM or predicting DR remain understudied.

OBJECTIVE

Two systematic literature reviews were conducted to explore the factors associated with TDM and DR.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Three online databases, select congress proceedings, and gray literature were searched (September 2022). Publications on TDM and DR in LPC/LAPC were prioritized based on the following: 2012 onward, ≥100 patients, journal article, and quantitative data. The Preferred Reporting Items Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed. Influential factors were those with p < 0.05; for TDM, factors described as "a decision driver", "associated", "influential", or "significant" were also included. The key factors were determined by number of studies, consistency of evidence, and study quality.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventy-five publications (68 studies) reported TDM. Patient participation in TDM was reported in 34 publications; overall, patients preferred an active/shared role. Of 39 influential TDM factors, age, ethnicity, external factors (physician recommendation most common), and treatment characteristics/toxicity were key. Forty-nine publications reported DR. The proportion of patients experiencing DR varied by treatment type: 7-43% (active surveillance), 12-57% (radical prostatectomy), 1-49% (radiotherapy), 28-49% (androgen-deprivation therapy), and 21-47% (combination therapy). Of 42 significant DR factors, treatment toxicity (sexual/urinary/bowel dysfunction), patient role in TDM, and treatment type were key.

CONCLUSIONS

The key factors impacting TDM were physician recommendation, age, ethnicity, and treatment characteristics. Treatment toxicity and TDM approach were the key factors influencing DR. To help patients navigate factors influencing TDM and to limit DR, a shared, consensual TDM approach between patients, caregivers, and physicians is needed.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at factors influencing treatment decision-making (TDM) and decision regret (DR) in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. The key factors influencing TDM were doctor's recommendation, patient age/ethnicity, and treatment side effects. A shared, consensual TDM approach between patients and doctors was found to limit DR.

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.

Comparing Active Surveillance and Watchful Waiting With Radical Treatment Using Machine Learning Models Among Patients With Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

In 2021, 59.6% of low-risk patients with prostate cancer were under active surveillance (AS) as their first course of treatment. However, few studies have investigated AS and watchful waiting (WW) separately. The objectives of this study were to develop and validate a population-level machine learning model for distinguishing AS and WW in the conservative treatment group, and to investigate initial cancer management trends from 2004 to 2017 and the risk of chronic diseases among patients with prostate cancer with different treatment modalities.

METHODS

In a cohort of 18,134 patients with prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2004 and 2017, 1,926 patients with available AS/WW information were analyzed using machine learning algorithms with 10-fold cross-validation. Models were evaluated using performance metrics and Brier score. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios for chronic disease risk.

RESULTS

Logistic regression models achieved a test area under the receiver operating curve of 0.73, F-score of 0.79, accuracy of 0.71, and Brier score of 0.29, demonstrating good calibration, precision, and recall values. We noted a sharp increase in AS use between 2004 and 2016 among patients with low-risk prostate cancer and a moderate increase among intermediate-risk patients between 2008 and 2017. Compared with the AS group, radical treatment was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality but higher risks of Alzheimer disease, anemia, glaucoma, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension.

CONCLUSION

A machine learning approach accurately distinguished AS and WW groups in conservative treatment in this decision analytical model study. Our results provide insight into the necessity to separate AS and WW in population-based studies.

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.

Prognostic Value of the Intermediate-risk Feature in Men with Favorable Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: Implications for Active Surveillance

Background

Guidelines suggest that active surveillance (AS) may be considered for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk (fIR) prostate cancer.

Objective

To compare the outcomes between fIR prostate cancer patients included by Gleason score (GS) or prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Most patients are classified with fIR disease due to either a 3 + 4 = 7 GS (fIR-GS) or a PSA level of 10-20 ng/ml (fIR-PSA). Previous research suggests that inclusion by GS 7 may be associated with worse outcomes.

Design setting and participants

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of US veterans diagnosed with fIR prostate cancer from 2001 to 2015.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We compared the incidence of metastatic disease, prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), all-cause mortality (ACM), and receipt of definitive treatment between fIR-PSA and fIR-GS patients managed with AS. Outcomes were compared with those of a previously published cohort of patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease using cumulative incidence function and Gray's test for statistical significance.

Results and limitations

The cohort included 663 men; 404 had fIR-GS (61%) and 249 fIR-PSA (39%). There was no evidence of difference in the incidence of metastatic disease (8.6% vs 5.8%, p = 0.77), receipt of definitive treatment (77.6% vs 81.5%, p = 0.43), PCSM (5.7% vs 2.5%, p = 0.274), and ACM (16.8% vs 19.1%, p = 0.14) between the fIR-PSA and fIR-GS groups at 10 yr. On multivariate regression, unfavorable intermediate-risk disease was associated with higher rates of metastatic disease, PCSM, and ACM. Limitations included varying surveillance protocols.

Conclusions

There is no evidence of difference in oncological and survival outcomes between men with fIR-PSA and fIR-GS prostate cancer undergoing AS. Thus, presence of GS 7 disease alone should not exclude patients from consideration of AS. Shared decision-making should be utilized to optimize management for each patient.

Patient summary

In this report, we compared the outcomes of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the Veterans Health Administration. We found no significant difference between survival and oncological outcomes.

Long-term Outcomes Among Men Undergoing Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in Sweden

IMPORTANCE

The long-term outcomes among men with prostate cancer (PC) whose disease is managed with active surveillance (AS) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a simulation model with a 30-year follow-up for men with PC managed with AS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cohort study, a state transition model was created using data from Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) on 23 655 men diagnosed with PC and managed with deferred treatment to estimate treatment trajectories. A simulation was performed with 100 000 men in each combination of age at diagnosis, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and PC risk with a follow-up of 30 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Death from PC and death from other causes were estimated, and the proportion of time without active PC treatment was assessed until date of death or age 85 years.

RESULTS

This study included 23 655 men from PCBaSe with a median age at diagnosis of 69 years (IQR, 64-74 years). Of these, 16 177 men underwent active surveillance for PC and 7478 underwent watchful waiting. The proportion of men who were diagnosed at age 55 years and died of PC before age 85 years was 9% for very low-risk PC, 13% for low-risk PC, and 15% for intermediate-risk PC. Among men with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0 who were diagnosed at age 70 years, the corresponding percentages were 3%, 6%, and 7%, respectively. The mean proportion of remaining life-years without active PC treatment for men diagnosed at age 55 years was 12 of 25 years (48%) for very low-risk PC, 9 of 25 years (36%) for low-risk PC, and 7 of 25 (29%) for intermediate-risk PC. For men aged 70 years, the corresponding numbers were 10 of 13 years (77%), 9 of 13 years (66%), and 8 of 13 years (60%), respectively. Men with intermediate-risk PC who were younger than 60 years at diagnosis had a high risk of PC death (12%-15%) and fewer remaining life-years without active PC treatment (29%-33%). In contrast, men with low-risk PC who were older than 65 years at diagnosis had a lower risk of PC death (3%-5%) and more remaining life-years without active PC treatment (62%-77%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this Swedish cohort study suggest that active surveillance may be a safe strategy for disease management among men with PC who were older than 65 years at diagnosis.

Urinary marker panels for aggressive prostate cancer detection

Majority of patients with indolent prostate cancer (PCa) can be managed with active surveillance. Therefore, finding biomarkers for classifying patients between indolent and aggressive PCa is essential. In this study, we investigated urinary marker panels composed of urinary glycopeptides and/or urinary prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for their clinical utility in distinguishing non-aggressive (Grade Group 1) from aggressive (Grade Group ≥ 2) PCa. Urinary glycopeptides acquired via data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry (DIA-MS) were quantitatively analyzed, where prostatic acid phosphatase (ACPP), clusterin (CLU), alpha-1-acid glycoprotein 1 (ORM1), and CD antigen 97 (CD97) were selected to be evaluated in various combinations with and without urinary PSA. Targeted parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) assays of the glycopeptides from urinary ACPP and CLU were investigated along with urinary PSA for the ability of aggressive PCa detection. The multi-urinary marker panels, combined via logistic regression, were statistically evaluated using bootstrap resampling and validated by an independent cohort. Majority of the multi-urinary marker panels (e.g., a panel consisted of ACPP, CLU, and Urinary PSA) achieved area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.70 to 0.85. Thus, multi-marker panels investigated in this study showed clinically meaningful results on aggressive PCa detection to separate Grade Group 1 from Grade Group 2 and above warranting further evaluation in clinical setting in future.

Five-year follow-up study of a population-based prospective cohort of men with low-risk prostate cancer: the treatment options in prostate cancer study (TOPCS): study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) to reduce overtreatment and to maintain patients' quality of life (QOL). However, whether African American (AA) men can safely undergo AS is controversial due to concerns of more aggressive disease and lack of empirical data on the safety and effectiveness of AS in this population. Withholding of AS may lead to a lost opportunity for improving survivorship in AA men. In this study, peer-reviewed and funded by the US Department of Defense, we will assess whether AS is an equally effective and safe management option for AA as it is for White men with LRPC.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The project extends follow-up of a large contemporary population-based cohort of LRPC patients (n=1688) with a high proportion of AA men (~20%) and well-characterised baseline and 2-year follow-up data. The objectives are to (1) determine any racial differences in AS adherence, switch rate from AS to curative treatment and time to treatment over 5 years after diagnosis, (2) compare QOL among AS group and curative treatment group over time, overall and by race and (3) evaluate whether reasons for switching from AS to curative treatment differ by race. Validation of survey responses related to AS follow-up procedures is being conducted through medical record review. We expect to obtain 5-year survey from ~900 (~20% AA) men by the end of this study to have sufficient power. Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques will be used to examine racial differences in AS adherence, effectiveness and QOL.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The parent and current studies were approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Wayne State University and Emory University. Since it is an observational study, ethical or safety risks are low. We will disseminate our findings to relevant conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Proteomic Analysis Identifies NDUFS1 and ATP5O as Novel Markers for Survival Outcome in Prostate Cancer

We aimed to identify novel markers for aggressive prostate cancer in a STAT3-low proteomics-derived dataset of mitochondrial proteins by immunohistochemical analysis and correlation with transcriptomic data and biochemical recurrence in a STAT3 independent PCa cohort. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPE) sample selection for proteomic analysis and tissue-microarray (TMA) generation was conducted from a cohort of PCa patients. Retrospective data analysis was performed with the same cohort. 153 proteins differentially expressed between STAT3-low and STAT3-high samples were identified. Out of these, 46 proteins were associated with mitochondrial processes including oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS), and 45 proteins were upregulated, including NDUFS1/ATP5O. In a STAT3 independent PCa cohort, high expression of NDUFS1/ATP5O was confirmed by immunocytochemistry (IHC) and was significantly associated with earlier biochemical recurrence (BCR). mRNA expression levels for these two genes were significantly higher in intra-epithelial neoplasia and in PCa compared to benign prostate glands. NDUFS1/ATP5O levels are increased both at the mRNA and protein level in aggressive PCa. Our results provide evidence that NDUFS1/ATP5O could be used to identify high-risk PCa patients.

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

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

High expression of SCHLAP1 in primary prostate cancer is an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence, despite substantial heterogeneity

In primary prostate cancer, the common multifocality and heterogeneity are major obstacles in finding robust prognostic tissue biomarkers. The long noncoding RNA SCHLAP1 has been suggested, but its prognostic value has not been investigated in the context of tumor heterogeneity. In the present study, expression of SCHLAP1 was investigated using real-time RT-PCR in a multisampled series of 778 tissue samples from radical prostatectomies of 164 prostate cancer patients (median follow-up time 7.4 y). The prognostic value of SCHLAP1 was evaluated with biochemical recurrence as endpoint. In total, 29% of patients were classified as having high expression of SCHLAP1 in at least one malignant sample. Among these, inter- and intrafocal heterogeneity was detected in 72% and 56%, respectively. High expression of SCHLAP1 was shown to be a predictor of biochemical recurrence in both uni- and multivariable cox regression analyses (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02). High expression of SCHLAP1 was also significantly associated with adverse clinicopathological characteristics, including grade group, high pT stage, invasive cribriform growth/intraductal carcinoma of the prostate, and reactive stroma. In conclusion, high expression of SCHLAP1 in at least one malignant sample is a robust prognostic biomarker in primary prostate cancer. For the first time, high SCHLAP1 expression has been associated with the aggressive histopathologic feature reactive stroma. The expression of SCHLAP1 is highly heterogeneous, and analysis of multiple samples is therefore crucial in determination of the SCHLAP1 status of a patient.

Time Trends in Use of Radical Prostatectomy by Tumor Risk and Life Expectancy in a National Veterans Affairs Cohort

IMPORTANCE

Guidelines endorse using tumor risk and life expectancy (LE) to select appropriate candidates for radical prostatectomy (RP), recommending against treatment of most low-risk tumors and men with limited LE.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate time trends in the use of RP by tumor risk and Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index (PCCI) score in a contemporary, nationally representative Veterans Affairs (VA) cohort.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study of 5736 men treated with RP at 8 VA hospitals from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2017, used a nationally representative, multicenter sample from the VA SEARCH (Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital) database. Statistical analysis was performed from June 30, 2018, to August 20, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Stratified linear and log-linear Poisson regressions were used to estimate time trends in the proportion of men treated with RP across American Urological Association tumor risk and PCCI (a validated predictor of LE based on age and comorbidities) subgroups.

RESULTS

Among 5736 men (mean [SD] age at surgery, 62 [6] years) treated with RP from 2000 to 2017, the proportion of low-risk tumors treated with RP decreased from 51% to 7% (difference, -44%; 95% CI, -50% to -38%). The proportion of intermediate-risk tumors treated with RP increased from 30% to 59% (difference, 29%; 95% CI, 23%-35%), with unfavorable intermediate-risk tumors increasing from 30% to 41% (difference, 11%; 95% CI, 4%-18%) and favorable intermediate-risk tumors decreasing from 61% to 41% (difference, -20%; 95% CI, -24% to -15%). The proportion of high-risk tumors treated with RP increased from 18% to 33% (difference, 15%; 95% CI, 9%-21%). Among men treated with RP, the proportion with the highest PCCI scores of 10 or more (ie, LE <10 years) increased from 4% to 13% (difference, 9%; 95% CI, 4%-14%). Within each tumor risk subgroup, no significant difference in the rate of tumors treated with RP over time was found across PCCI subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, the use of RP shifted from low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk to higher-risk prostate cancer. However, its use among men with limited LE appears unchanged across tumor risk subgroups and increased overall.

Impact of a Genomic Test on Treatment Decision in a Predominantly African American Population With Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

The Genomic Prostate Score (GPS), performed on biopsy tissue, predicts adverse outcome in prostate cancer (PCa) and has shown promise for improving patient selection for active surveillance (AS). However, its impact on treatment choice in high-risk populations of African Americans is largely unknown and, in general, the effect of the GPS on this difficult decision has not been evaluated in randomized trials.

METHODS

Two hundred men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network very low to low-intermediate PCa from three Chicago hospitals (70% Black, 16% college graduates) were randomly assigned at diagnosis to standard counseling with or without a 12-gene GPS assay. The primary end point was treatment choice at a second postdiagnosis visit. The proportion of patients choosing AS was compared, and multivariable modeling was used to estimate the effects of various factors on AS acceptance.

RESULTS

AS acceptance was high overall, although marginally lower in the intervention group (77% v 88%; P = .067), and lower still when men with inadequate specimens were excluded (P = .029). Men with lower health literacy who received a GPS were seven-fold less likely to choose AS compared with controls, whereas no difference was seen in men with higher health literacy (Pinteraction = .022). Among men with low-intermediate risk, 69% had GPS values consistent with unfavorable intermediate or high-risk cancer. AS choice was also independently associated with a family history of PCa and having health insurance.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to other studies, the net effect of the GPS was to move patients away from AS, primarily among men with low health literacy. These findings have implications for our understanding of how prognostic molecular assays that generate probabilities of poor outcome can affect treatment decisions in diverse clinical populations.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Active Surveillance-Is It Feasible for Intermediate-risk Localised Prostate Cancer?

Background

Although active surveillance (AS) is a well-recognised treatment option for localised low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC), its role in the management of localised intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) is not clear yet and the available literature is slightly contradictory.

Objective

To compare the outcome of AS between LRPC and IRPC patients.

Design, setting, and participants

Between November 2002 and August 2019, 372 men with localised prostate cancer (PC) underwent AS in our hospital based on local departmental protocol.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The primary outcome measures were overall survival, disease progression–free survival, treatment-free survival, and biochemical recurrence–free survival. Survival times in the low- and intermediate-risk groups were compared using Cox regression analysis.

Results and limitations

Out of 372 localised PC patients, 276 (74%) had LRPC and 96 (26%) IRPC. Overall, 86 (31.2%) low-risk and 25 (26%) intermediate-risk patients developed disease progression, and 86 (31.2%) low-risk and 22 (23%) intermediate-risk patients underwent active treatment. Among the treated patients, eight (2.9%) LRPC patients and one (1%) IRPC patient developed biochemical recurrence. In total, only one patient (from the low-risk group) had metastasis and 25 patients passed away (18 from the low-risk and seven from the intermediate-risk group). No death was recorded due to PC in the cohort. There was no difference in any of the survival outcomes between LRPC and IRPC patients in unadjusted analysis as well as when analysis was performed after adjusting the potentially confounding factors. Limitations include relatively short median follow-up time and failure to objectively define the criteria for the selection of IRPC patients suitable for AS.

Conclusions

The option of AS could be considered for carefully selected and well-informed patients with IRPC provided close structured monitoring is maintained.

Patient summary

In this report, we looked at various survival outcomes of active surveillance between low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients in a large British population. There was no difference in any of the survival outcomes between the two groups. We concluded that carefully selected intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients could be offed the option of active surveillance.

Patient-reported Health Status, Comorbidity Burden, and Prostate Cancer Treatment

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether patient-reported health status, more so than comorbidity, influences treatment in men with localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data linked with Medicare claims and CAHPS surveys, we identified men aged 65-84 diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from 2004 to 2013 and ascertained their National Cancer Institute (NCI) comorbidity score and patient-reported health status. Adjusting for demographics and cancer risk, we examined the relationship between these measures and treatment for the overall cohort, low-risk men aged 65-74, intermediate/high-risk men aged 65-74, and men aged 75-84.

RESULTS

Among 2724 men, 43.0% rated their overall health as Excellent/Very Good, while 62.7% had a comorbidity score of 0. Beyond age and cancer risk, patient-reported health status was significantly associated with treatment. Compared to men reporting Excellent/Very Good health, men in Poor/Fair health less often received treatment (odds ratio [OR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.90). Younger men with intermediate/high-risk cancer in Good (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41-0.88) or Fair/Poor (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.79) health less often underwent prostatectomy vs radiation compared to men in Excellent/Very Good health. In contrast, men with NCI comorbidity score of 1 more often received treatment (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.11-1.70) compared to men with NCI comorbidity score of 0.

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported health status drives treatment for prostate cancer in an appropriate direction whereas comorbidity has an inconsistent relationship. Greater understanding of this interplay between subjective and empiric assessments may facilitate more shared decision-making in prostate cancer care.

Prediction of pathologic upgrading in Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer: Who is a candidate for active surveillance?

Purpose

Whether active surveillance (AS) can be safely extended to patients with Gleason score (GS) 3+4 prostate cancer is highly debated. We examined the incidence and predictors of upgrading among patients with GS 3+4 disease.

Materials and Methods

The study involved 377 patients with biopsy GS 3+4 who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RP) from 2014 to 2018 at a single institution. We analyzed the rate of GS upgrading and used logistic regression to determine the predictors of upgrading.

Results

A total of 168 (44.6%) patients with GS 3+4 experienced an upgrade in GS. In multivariable analysis, advanced age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, PSA density (PSAD) and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) score were significant predictors of GS upgrading. When structured into a predictive model that included age ≥65 years, PSA ≥7.7 ng/mL, PSAD ≥0.475 ng/mL² and PI-RADS v2 score 4-5, the probability of GS upgrading ranged from 36.4% to 65.7% when one to four of these factors were included.

Conclusions

A substantial proportion of patients with GS 3+4 prostate cancer were upgraded after RP. However, according to our model combining clinical and imaging predictors, patients with a low risk of GS upgrading may be eligible candidates for AS.

Temporal Changes in Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Men With Prostate Cancer Electing for Conservative Management in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the role of clinical and sociodemographic factors in the use of conservative management for localized prostate cancer in the US between 2010 and 2015, and to understand how those factors evolved in light of the recent national increase in conservative management rates.

METHODS

Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program "Prostate with Watchful Waiting Database," where conservative treatment was delineated by a distinct classifier, was used to evaluate factors associated with electing for conservative management at initial diagnosis (2010-2015). Men aged ≥40 years with cT1-T2a and T2NOS with Gleason score 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 were included (n = 118,415). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between clinical and sociodemographic factors and electing conservative management.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 15, a total of 22,099 (18.6%) men were managed conservatively. Mean age of men managed conservatively decreased from 66.6 to 64.6 years, and median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) increased from 5.7 to 6.0 ng/mL, P <.0001. Men with lower income experienced a greater increase in conservative management rates compared to those with high income (152% vs 72% for third and fifth [richest] income quintiles, respectively). On multivariable analysis, Gleason score 3 + 3, older age, lower PSA, more recent year, treatment in the West, and higher levels of county income were significantly associated with conservative management.

CONCLUSION

Characteristics of men undergoing conservative management are rapidly changing. Younger men, men with higher PSAs, and men of all incomes are increasingly being managed conservatively. Narrowing of income-based disparities with concurrent broadening of patients considered eligible for surveillance is encouraging.

Selecting Active Surveillance: Decision Making Factors for Men with a Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Background. Men with a low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) should consider observation, particularly active surveillance (AS), a monitoring strategy that avoids active treatment (AT) in the absence of disease progression. Objective. To determine clinical and decision-making factors predicting treatment selection. Design. Prospective cohort study. Setting. Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). Patients. Men newly diagnosed with low-risk PCa between 2012 and 2014 who remained enrolled in KPNC for 12 months following diagnosis. Measurements. We used surveys and medical record abstractions to measure sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and psychological and decision-making factors. Men were classified as being on observation if they did not undergo AT within 12 months of diagnosis. We performed multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results. The average age of the 1171 subjects was 61.5 years (s = 7.2 years), and 81% were white. Overall, 639 (57%) were managed with observation; in adjusted analyses, significant predictors of observation included awareness of low-risk status (odds ratio 1.75; 95% confidence interval 1.04-2.94), knowing that observation was an option (3.62; 1.62-8.09), having concerns about treatment-related quality of life (1.21, 1.09-1.34), reporting a urologist recommendation for observation (8.20; 4.68-14.4), and having a lower clinical stage (T1c v. T2a, 2.11; 1.16-3.84). Conversely, valuing cancer control (1.54; 1.37-1.72) and greater decisional certainty (1.66; 1.18-2.35) were predictive of AT. Limitations. Results may be less generalizable to other types of health care systems and to more diverse populations. Conclusions. Many participants selected observation, and this was associated with tumor characteristics. However, nonclinical decisional factors also independently predicted treatment selection. Efforts to provide early decision support, particularly targeting knowledge deficits, and reassurance to men with low-risk cancers may facilitate better decision making and increase uptake of observation, particularly AS.

How to Pick Out the "Unreal" Gleason 3 + 3 Patients: A Nomogram for More Precise Active Surveillance Protocol in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer in a Chinese Population

OBJECTIVE

To develop a nomogram for selecting the "unreal" Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 patients in biopsy GS 3 + 3 prostate cancer (PCa) patients.

METHODS

Patients who were newly diagnosed with PCa by biopsy and underwent radical prostatectomy in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from January 2009 to October 2018 were enrolled. Comparisons were made between GS 3 + 3 and higher grade PCa patients. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the risk factors for the "unreal" GS 3 + 3 PCa in biopsy GS 3 + 3 patients. Then, a nomogram was developed to predict the probability of "unreal" GS 3 + 3 PCa according to the results of multivariate analysis. Finally, receiver operating characteristic and decision curve analysis (DCA) curves were structured to identify the efficiency of the predictive model.

RESULTS

Compared to higher GS grade, biopsy GS 3 + 3 had greater upgrade risk (P < 0.05) while a lower proportion of positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion, extra-prostatic extension, lymph node invasion, and nerve invasion (all P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that age, PSAD, prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and biopsy positive cores were significant risk factors for "unreal" GS 3 + 3. A nomogram was developed utilizing these factors with high prediction performance (area under curve = 0.924). Furthermore, DCA curve suggested that this predictive model was effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The nomogram identified the probability of "unreal" GS 3 + 3 PCa in biopsy GS 3 + 3 PCa patients, which was of great value for clinical guidance in low risk PCa therapy.

Age at diagnosis and prostate cancer treatment and prognosis: a population-based cohort study

Background

Old age at prostate cancer diagnosis has been associated with poor prognosis in several studies. We aimed to investigate the association between age at diagnosis and prognosis, and if it is independent of tumor characteristics, primary treatment, year of diagnosis, mode of detection and comorbidity.

Patients and methods

We conducted a nation-wide cohort study including 121 392 Swedish men aged 55-95 years in Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 3.0 diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1998-2012 and followed for prostate cancer death through 2014. Data were available on age, stage, grade, prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-level, mode of detection, comorbidity, educational level and primary treatment. We used Cox regression to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

With increasing age at diagnosis, men had more comorbidity, fewer PSA-detected cancers, more advanced cancers and were less often treated with curative intent. Among men with high-risk or regionally metastatic disease, the proportion of men with unknown M stage was higher among old men versus young men. During a follow-up of 751 000 person-years, 23 649 men died of prostate cancer. In multivariable Cox-regression analyses stratified by treatment, old age at diagnosis was associated with poorer prognosis among men treated with deferred treatment (HRage 85+ versus 60-64: 7.19; 95% CI: 5.61-9.20), androgen deprivation therapy (HRage 85+ versus 60-64: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.61-1.84) or radical prostatectomy (HRage 75+ versus 60-64: 2.20; 95% CI: 1.01-4.77), but not radiotherapy (HRage 75+ versus 60-64: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.76-1.53).

Conclusion

Our findings argue against a strong inherent effect of age on risk of prostate cancer death, but indicate that in current clinical practice, old men with prostate cancer receive insufficient diagnostic workup and subsequent curative treatment.

Performance characteristics of prostate-specific antigen density and biopsy primary Gleason score to predict biochemical failure in patients with intermediate prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy

Background

Prognosis for intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remains variable; therefore, we aimed to investigate high-risk factors for biochemical recurrence (BCR), and intermediate-risk PCa using radical prostatectomy to identify patients having equivalent BCR-free survival rates when compared to high-risk PCa.

Patients and methods

A total of 441 medical records were analyzed, including those of 169 intermediate-risk and 272 high-risk PCa patients. Risk factors for time to BCR were tested and analyzed using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, log-rank tests, and Cox proportion hazards models.

Results

In the intermediate-risk group, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) and primary Gleason pattern were significant preoperative risk factors for BCR. Moreover, BCR-free survival of patients in the intermediate-risk group with a higher PSAD (>0.5 ng/mL/cm³) was comparable with that of patients in the high-risk group (P=0.735). When combining primary Gleason pattern 4 and 3 with PSAD cut-offs 0.3–0.7 ng/mL/cm³, we found that BCR-free survival of patients in the intermediate-risk group with a primary Gleason pattern 4 and PSAD >0.3 ng/mL/cm³ was comparable with that of patients in the high-risk group (P=0.463).

Conclusion

PSAD and primary Gleason pattern are potential risk factors associated with biochemical failure in intermediate-risk PCa patients after radical prostatectomy. Regarding significant differences in prognosis according to PSAD as well as primary Gleason pattern on biopsy, a subset of the intermediate-risk patients could be identified with outcomes that were equivalent to that of high-risk patients.

Perceptions of Barriers Towards Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From a National Survey of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists

PURPOSE

The reasons for low clinical adoption of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remain poorly understood. Thus, we conducted a national survey of radiation oncologists (ROs) and urologists (UROs) to elucidate perceived barriers to AS for low-risk PCa.

METHODS

In 2017, we undertook a four-wave mail survey of 1855 ROs and UROs. The survey instrument assessed attitudes about possible barriers towards AS for low-risk PCa. We used Pearson Chi square and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify physician characteristics associated with attitudes about AS.

RESULTS

We received 691 completed surveys for an overall response rate of 37.3%. A majority of respondents indicated that they felt comfortable recommending AS (90.0%), agreed that high-level evidence supports it (82.3%), and considered AS equally effective for survival compared with surgery and radiation therapy (84.4%). UROs were less likely to agree that patients were not interested in AS for low-risk PCa compared with ROs (16.5 vs. 48.9%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.18, p < 0.001). Similarly, UROs were less likely to concur patients avoid AS because of repeat prostate biopsies than ROs (36.3 vs. 55.4%; adjusted OR 0.41, p < 0.001). ROs and UROs were more likely to agree that patients preferred treatments delivered by the respondent's specialty.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician perceptions of patient lack of interest in AS, need for repeat prostate biopsies, and biases of patient treatment preferences in favor of their own specialty treatments represent key barriers to AS. Shared decision making may be a meaningful approach to engaging patients in conversations about treatment decisions.

Factors Influencing Men's Choice of and Adherence to Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: A Mixed-method Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Despite support for active surveillance (AS) as a first treatment choice for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PC), this strategy is largely underutilised.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review barriers and facilitators to selecting and adhering to AS for low-risk PC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched PsychINFO, PubMed, Medline 2000-now, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central databases between 2002 and 2017 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance (PREFS) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) quality criteria were applied. Forty-seven studies were identified.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Key themes emerged as factors influencing both choice and adherence to AS: (1) patient and tumour factors (age, comorbidities, knowledge, education, socioeconomic status, family history, grade, tumour volume, and fear of progression/side effects); (2) family and social support; (3) provider (speciality, communication, and attitudes); (4) healthcare organisation (geography and type of practice); and (5) health policy (guidelines, year, and awareness).

CONCLUSIONS

Many factors influence men's choice and adherence to AS on multiple levels. It is important to learn from the experience of other chronic health conditions as well as from institutions/countries that are making significant headway in appropriately recruiting men to AS protocols, through standardised patient information, clinician education, and nationally agreed guidelines, to ultimately decrease heterogeneity in AS practice.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed the scientific literature for factors affecting men's choice and adherence to active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer. Our findings suggest that the use of AS could be increased by addressing a variety of factors such as information, psychosocial support, clinician education, and standardised guidelines.

National Trends in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Validation of Medicare Claims-based Algorithms

OBJECTIVE

To better describe the real-world use of active surveillance. Active surveillance is a preferred management option for low-risk prostate cancer, yet its use outside of high-volume institutions is poorly understood. We created multiple claims-based algorithms, validated them using a robust clinical registry, and applied them to Medicare claims to describe national utilization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified men with prostate cancer from 2012-2014 in a 100% sample of Michigan Medicare data and linked them with the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry. Using MUSIC treatment assignment as the standard, we determined the performance of 8 claims-based algorithms to identify men on active surveillance. We selected 3 algorithms (the most sensitive, the most specific, and a balanced algorithm incorporating age and comorbidity) and applied them to a 20% national Medicare sample to describe national trends.

RESULTS

We identified 1186 men with incident prostate cancer and completely linked data. Eight algorithms were tested with sensitivity ranging from 23.5% to 88.2% and specificity ranging from 93.5% to 99.1%. We found that the use of surveillance for men with incident prostate cancer increased from 2007 to 2014, nationally. However, among all men in the population, there was a large decrease in the rate of prostate cancer diagnosis and an increased or stable rate in the use of active surveillance, depending on the algorithm used. Less than 25% of men on active surveillance underwent a confirmatory prostate biopsy.

CONCLUSION

We describe the performance of claims-based algorithms to identify active surveillance.

Quality of care and economic considerations of active surveillance of men with prostate cancer

The current health care climate mandates the delivery of high-value care for patients considering active surveillance for newly-diagnosed prostate cancer. Value is defined by increasing benefits (e.g., quality) for acceptable costs. This review discusses quality of care considerations for men contemplating active surveillance, and highlights cost implications at the patient, health-system, and societal level related to pursuit of non-interventional management of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. In general, most quality measures are focused on prostate cancer care in general, rather that active surveillance patients specifically. However, most prostate cancer quality measures are pertinent to men seeking close observation of their prostate tumors with active surveillance. These include accurate documentation of clinical stage, informed discussion of all treatment options, and appropriate use of imaging for less-aggressive prostate cancer. Furthermore, interventions that may help improve the quality of care for active surveillance patients are reviewed (e.g., quality collaboratives, judicious antibiotic use, etc.). Finally, the potential economic impact and benefits of broad acceptance of active surveillance strategies are highlighted.

National trends in management of localized prostate cancer: A population based analysis 2004-2013

PURPOSE

Recent years have brought many changes in the management of localized prostate cancer as national screening guidelines have been updated and diagnostic practice patterns evolved. We sought to better understand how the changing landscape influenced treatment utilization in the United States.

METHODS

We used the SEER database in this retrospective analysis of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2013. We evaluated utilization of primary treatment modalities over time with descriptive and trend analyses, and examined treatment utilization by cancer risk group and age at diagnosis.

RESULTS

Of 398 074 patients in the analytic data set, 38% elected radiation therapy, 38% underwent radical prostatectomy, and 24% opted for expectant management. While in 2004 radiation treatment was almost twice as common as expectant management (42% vs 23%), by 2013 approximately equal percentages of patients were treated with each of the three modalities. Expectant management use increased over time, while the proportion of patients opting for surgery decreased remarkably with increasing age at diagnosis in intermediate- and higher-risk disease. Among radiotherapy options, brachytherapy was most common among lower-risk patients in 2004 but substantially decreased over time (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Management of localized prostate cancer changed substantially over time in the United States. Utilization of expectant management has increased for men with low- and intermediate risk cancer. Among those who pursue curative therapy, younger men remain more likely to elect surgery whereas older men tend to choose radiotherapy. Further studies are needed to better characterize factors contributing to treatment selection.

The Movember Foundation's GAP3 cohort: a profile of the largest global prostate cancer active surveillance database to date

OBJECTIVES

The Movember Foundation launched the Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) initiative to create a global consensus on the selection and monitoring of men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS). The aim of this study is to present data on inclusion and follow-up for AS in this unique global AS database.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2014 and 2016, the database was created by combining patient data from 25 established AS cohorts worldwide (USA, Canada, Australasia, UK and Europe). Data on a total of 15 101 patients were included. Descriptive statistics were used to report patients' clinical and demographic characteristics at the time of PCa diagnosis, clinical follow-up, discontinuation of AS and subsequent treatment. Cumulative incidence curves were used to report discontinuation rates over time.

RESULTS

At diagnosis, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) patient age was 65 (60-70) years and the median prostate-specific antigen level was 5.4 (4.0-7.3) ng/mL. Most patients had clinical stage T1 disease (71.8%), a biopsy Gleason score of 6 (88.8%) and one tumour-positive biopsy core (60.3%). Patients on AS had a median follow-up time of 2.2 (1.0-5.0) years. After 5, 10 and 15 years of follow-up, respectively, 58%, 39% and 23% of patients were still on AS. The current version of GAP3 has limited data on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), quality of life and genomic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

GAP3 is the largest worldwide collaboration integrating patient data from men with PCa on AS. The results will allow individual patients and clinicians to have greater confidence in the personalized decision to either delay or proceed with active treatment. Longer follow-up and the evaluation of MRI, new genomic markers and patient-related outcomes will result in even more valuable data and eventually in better patient outcomes.

Curative Radiation Therapy at Time of Progression Under Active Surveillance Compared With Up-front Radical Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To describe and compare outcomes in men with initially presumed indolent prostate cancer receiving definitive radiation therapy after active surveillance (AS) versus those in a risk-matched cohort undergoing up-front radiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Men prospectively enrolled in an AS program between 1992 and 2014 and subsequently undergoing curative radiation therapy (ie, image guided radiation therapy [IGRT] or low-dose-rate brachytherapy [LDR-BT]) were identified. Biochemical relapse-free rate (bRFR), metastasis-free rate (mFR), and overall survival (OS) were compared against a cohort of men treated up front, matched by age, clinical prognostic indices (risk group, prostate-specific antigen, cT category, Gleason score, percentage of involved biopsy cores), and radiation therapy modality.

RESULTS

Of 1070 patients in the AS registry, 200 underwent definitive radiation therapy (143 IGRT and 57 LDR-BT) after a median of 32.9 (interquartile range [IQR] 20.6-59.8) months on surveillance. Main reasons for treatment were grade and volume upgrading (57.5% and 26%, respectively). Median follow-up after radiation therapy was 4.9 (IQR 3.1-7.5) years. At 5 years the bRFR, mFR, and OS were, respectively, 97%, 99%, and 98.5%. No patient died of prostate cancer. Adequate risk-matching was confirmed in an independent cohort comprising 359 patients receiving up-front IGRT (71%) or LDR-BT (29%) and followed for a median of 9 (IQR 3.1-7.5) years. There was no difference in the disease-specific outcomes (bRFR, mFR) between the 2 cohorts (Gray's P value of .257 and .934, respectively). In multivariate analyses, timing of radical radiation therapy (deferred vs up-front) was not correlated to biochemical relapse or metastases occurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Curative-intent radiation therapy (ie, dose-escalated IGRT or LDR-BT) after a period of AS renders excellent oncologic outcomes at 5 years. Deferring radical therapy after a period of AS does not seem to result in inferior oncologic outcomes compared with patients with similar risk characteristics undergoing up-front treatment.

Patient and provider experiences with active surveillance: A scoping review

Objective

Active surveillance (AS) represents a fundamental shift in managing select cancer patients that initiates treatment only upon disease progression to avoid overtreatment. Given uncertain outcomes, patient engagement could support decision-making about AS. Little is known about how to optimize patient engagement for AS decision-making. This scoping review aimed to characterize research on patient and provider communication about AS, and associated determinants and outcomes.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library were searched from 2006 to October 2016. English language studies that evaluated cancer patient or provider AS views, experiences or behavioural interventions were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Summary statistics were used to describe study characteristics and findings.

Results

A total of 2,078 studies were identified, 1,587 were unique, and 1,243 were excluded based on titles/abstracts. Among 344 full-text articles, 73 studies were eligible: 2 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 4 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), 6 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and 61 prostate cancer. The most influential determinant of initiating AS was physician recommendation. Others included higher socioeconomic status, smaller tumor size, comorbid disease, older age, and preference to avoid adverse treatment effects. AS patients desired more information about AS and reassurance about future treatment options, involvement in decision-making and assessment of illness uncertainty and supportive care needs during follow-up. Only three studies of prostate cancer evaluated interventions to improve AS communication or experience.

Conclusions

This study revealed a paucity of research on AS communication for DCIS, RCC and CLL, but generated insight on how to optimize AS discussions in the context of routine care or clinical trials from research on AS for prostate cancer. Further research is needed on AS for patients with DCIS, RCC and CLL, and to evaluate interventions aimed at patients and/or providers to improve AS communication, experience and associated outcomes.

Review of the comparative effectiveness of radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or expectant management of localized prostate cancer in registry data

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of treatment for prostate cancer is primarily based on randomized controlled trials. Long-term outcomes are generally difficult to evaluate within experimental studies and may benefit from large pools of observational data. We conducted a systematic review of administrative and registry studies to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer on overall and prostate-cancer specific mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P, 2015), we conducted a systematic search of Ovid Medline and Embase (1946-February 2017) and identified studies that evaluated the relationship between types of treatment for localized prostate cancer and mortality. Additional articles were identified through manual search. Randomized, prospective, and single institution studies were excluded. The risk of bias for each study was evaluated with the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios were reported to evaluate overall and cancer-specific mortality.

RESULTS

We screened 4,721 studies and included for review, 19 that were published between 2001 and 2015. The pooled population included 228,444 patients. Countries of origin included the United States, Canada, China, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Sweden, and the sources included administrative (n = 6) and cancer registry or prostate databases (n = 11). Overall and cancer-specific mortality were lowest among definitive treatment arms as compared to conservative therapy with no treatment, observation, or active surveillance. Radiotherapy was associated with worse overall and cancer-specific mortality than radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSION

Although observational studies using large, population-based cohorts have the potential for bias, we found consistent evidence that high-quality observational studies may be used to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer treatment. Methodologic limitations of observational data should be considered.

Uptake of Active Surveillance for Very-Low-Risk Prostate Cancer in Sweden

IMPORTANCE

Active surveillance is an important option to reduce prostate cancer overtreatment, but it remains underutilized in many countries. Models from the United States show that greater use of active surveillance is important for prostate cancer screening to be cost-effective.

OBJECTIVES

To perform an up-to-date, nationwide, population-based study on use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer in Sweden.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional study in the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden from 2009 through 2014. The NPCR has data on 98% of prostate cancers diagnosed in Sweden and has comprehensive linkages to other nationwide databases. Overall, 32 518 men with a median age of 67 years were diagnosed with favorable-risk prostate cancer, including 4693, 15 403, and 17 115 men with very-low-risk (subset of the low-risk group) (clinical stage, T1c; Gleason score, ≤6; prostate-specific antigen [PSA], <10 ng/mL; PSA density <0.15 ng/mL/cm3; and <8-mm total cancer length in ≤4 positive biopsy cores), low-risk (including all men in the very-low-risk group) (T1-T2; Gleason score, ≤6; and PSA, <10 ng/mL), and intermediate-risk disease (T1-T2 with Gleason score, 7 and/or PSA, 10-20 ng/mL).

EXPOSURES

Diagnosis with favorable-risk prostate cancer.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Utilization of active surveillance.

RESULTS

The use of active surveillance increased in men of all ages from 57% (380 of 665) to 91% (939 of 1027) for very-low-risk prostate cancer and from 40% (1159 of 2895) to 74% (1951 of 2644) for low-risk prostate cancer, with the strongest increase occurring from 2011 onward. Among men aged 50 to 59 years, 88% (211 of 240) with very-low-risk and 68% (351 of 518) with low-risk disease chose active surveillance in 2014. Use of active surveillance for intermediate-risk disease remained lower, 19% (561 of 3030) in 2014.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Active surveillance has become the dominant management for low-risk prostate cancer among men in Sweden, with the highest rates yet reported and almost complete uptake for very-low-risk cancer. These data should serve as a benchmark to compare the use of active surveillance for favorable-risk disease around the world.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

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

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

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

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PATIENT SUMMARY

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

Baseline and longitudinal plasma caveolin-1 level as a biomarker in active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the role of caveolin-1 (Cav-1) as a predictor of disease reclassification (DR) in men with early prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance (AS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analysed archived plasma samples prospectively collected from patients with early prostate cancer in a single-institution AS study. Of 825 patients enrolled, 542 had ≥1 year of follow-up. Baseline and longitudinal plasma Cav-1 levels were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Tumour volume or Gleason grade increases were criteria for DR. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between clinicopathological characteristics and reclassification risk.

RESULTS

In 542 patients, 480 (88.6%) had stage cT1c disease, 542 (100.0%) had a median prostate-specific antigen level of 4.1 ng/mL, and 531 (98.0%) had a median Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score of 1. In all, 473 (87.3%) had a Gleason score of 3+3. After a median of 3.1 years of follow-up, disease was reclassified in 163 patients (30.1%). The mean baseline Cav-1 level was 2.2 ± 8.5 ng/mL and the median 0.2 ng/mL (range, 0-85.5 ng/mL). In univariate analysis, baseline Cav-1 was a significant predictor for risk of DR (odds ratio [OR] 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-2.65; P = 0.002). In multivariate analysis, with adjustments for age, tumour length, group risk stratification and number of positive cores, reclassification risk associated with Cav-1 remained significant (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.28-2.84; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Baseline plasma Cav-1 level was an independent predictor of disease classification. New methods for refining AS and intervention may result.

Creation and internal validation of a biopsy avoidance prediction tool to aid in the choice of diagnostic approach in patients with prostate cancer suspicion

INTRODUCTION

To reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies while using novel tests judiciously, we created a tool to predict the probability of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) vs. low-risk prostate cancer or negative biopsy (i.e., when intervention is likely not needed) among men undergoing initial or repeat biopsy.

METHODS

Separate models were created for men undergoing initial and repeat biopsy, identified from our institutional biopsy database and the placebo arm of the REDUCE trial, respectively, to predict the presence of CSPC (Gleason≥7 or>33% of cores involved). Predictors considered included age, race, body mass index, family history of prostate cancer, digital rectal examination, prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free-to-total PSA, presence of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical small acinar proliferation on prior biopsy, number of prior biopsies, and number of cores previously taken. Multivariable logistic regression models that minimized the Akaike Information Criterion and maximized out-of-sample area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) were selected.

RESULTS

Of 7,963 biopsies (initial = 2,042; repeat = 5,921), 1,138 had CSPC (initial = 870 [42.6%]; repeat = 268 [4.5%]). Age, race, body mass index, family history, digital rectal examination, and PSA were included in the initial biopsy model (out-of-sample AUC = 0.74). Age, prostate volume, PSA, free-to-total PSA, prior high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and number of prior biopsies were included in the repeat biopsy model (out-of-sample AUC = 0.81).

CONCLUSION

These prediction models may help guide clinicians in avoiding unnecessary initial and repeat biopsies in men unlikely to harbor CSPC. This tool may also allow for the more judicious use of novel tests only in patients in need of further risk stratification before deciding whether to biopsy.