Gleason Upgrading with Time in a Large Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohort

Personalized Dynamic Prediction Model for Biopsy Timing in Patients With Prostate Cancer During Active Surveillance

Importance

Active surveillance (AS) for patients with prostate cancer (PC) often includes fixed repeat prostate biopsies that do not account for the varying risk of reclassification to significant disease. Given the invasive nature and potential complications of biopsies, a personalized approach is needed to balance the burden of biopsies with the risk of missing disease progression.

Objective

To develop and externally validate a dynamic model that predicts an individual's risk of PC reclassification during AS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prognostic study developed a dynamic prediction model using data from the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study, which was initiated in 2006. Follow-up was truncated until April 2023. External validation was conducted using cohorts from the world's largest centralized AS database, the Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance initiative database. The PRIAS study is a multicenter, prospective, web-based cohort study monitoring patients undergoing AS, involving more than 175 academic, nonacademic, and private centers across 23 countries worldwide. For the development and external validation of the model, all patients diagnosed with Grade Group 1 PC who underwent at least 1 baseline or follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 1 follow-up biopsy were included. Data were analyzed from September 2023 to January 2024.

Exposures

AS, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests, MRI, and prostate biopsies according to a fixed follow-up schedule.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A joint model for longitudinal and time-to-event data was used to predict reclassification to Grade Group 2 or greater on repeat biopsy using predefined baseline and repeated clinical characteristics. Performance was assessed using time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and negative predictive value.

Results

The development cohort included 2512 patients (median [IQR] age, 65 [59-69] years). Characteristics significantly associated with a higher risk of reclassification were increased age, higher PSA and velocity, lower prostate volume, a suspicious lesion on MRI, and no previous negative biopsy findings. Depending on the threshold and time point used, the model demonstrated a negative predictive value of 86% to 97%. External validation included 3199 patients from 9 other cohorts. The time-dependent area under the curve ranged from 0.81 to 0.84 in the development cohort and 0.52 to 0.90 at external validation.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this prognostic study, the developed dynamic risk model effectively identified patients at low risk of PC reclassification during AS. After prospective validation, this model may support personalized, risk-based AS and reduce the burden of unnecessary biopsies.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Grade 4.

Chromosome-specific segment size alterations are determinants of prognosis in prostate cancer

Currently, risk stratification is the most difficult problem in prostate cancer (PCa) management. Gleason grading cannot adequately predict cancer progression. This study aimed to identify chromosome-specific segment size alterations that could aid risk stratification and predict metastasis using a retrospective cohort-study strategy. A binary logistic regression model was generated using 16 chromosome-specific segments with size alterations (deletions and amplifications) that showed associations with disease stage (primary versus metastatic). The regression model was trained with the MSKCC PIK3R1 PCa cohort (n = 1417), and validated with the TCGA Firehose Legacy (n = 500), MSKCC Prostate Oncogenome Project (n = 218), and the SU2C/PCF Dream Team (n = 150) PCa cohorts. Furthermore, the capacity of the model to predict metastasis between primary tumours with metastasis (n = 54) and primary tumours without metastasis (n = 54) was tested. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the model at disease stage stratification ranged from 69.02% to 88.55%, 72.8% to 86.00% and 66.30% to 89.50%, respectively. The model also showed good performance at metastasis prediction with accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 57.41%, 62.96% and 51.85%, respectively. The study conclusion was that chromosome-specific segment size alterations can aid risk stratification and metastasis prediction. The significance of the study findings is that in combinations with clinical, biochemical, and histopathological variables, chromosome-specific alterations could improve current risk stratification and prediction models for PCa.

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

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

Influence of Active Surveillance on Gleason Score Upgrade and Prognosis in Low- and Favorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

Few studies have focused on the link between active surveillance (AS) and Gleason score upgrade (GSU) and its impact on the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer (PCa). This study aimed to analyze the effect of AS duration on GSU and prognostic value based on risk stratification. All eligible patients were risk-stratified according to AUA guidelines into low-risk (LR), favorable intermediate-risk (FIR), and unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) PCa. Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database, 28,368 LR, 27,243 FIR, and 12,210 UIR PCa patients were included. The relationship between AS duration and GSU was identified with univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Discrimination according to risk stratification of AS duration and GSU was tested by Kaplan-Meier analysis and competing risk regression models. The proportion of patients who chose AS was the highest among LR PCa (3434, 12.1%), while the proportion in UIR PCa was the lowest (887, 7.3%). The AS duration was only associated with GSU in LR PCa, with a high Gleason score (GS) at diagnosis being a strong predictor of GSU for FIR and UIR PCa. Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that long-term surveillance only made a significant difference in prognosis in UIR PCa. The competing risk analysis indicated that once GS was upgraded to 8 or above, the prognosis in each group was significantly worse. AS is recommended for LR and FIR PCa until GS is upgraded to 8, but AS may not be suitable for some UIR PCa patients.

Prostate cancer treatment - China's perspective

Prostate cancer (PCa) incidence and mortality have rapidly increased in China. Notably, unique epidemiological characteristics of PCa are found in the Chinese PCa population, including a low but rising incidence and an inferior but improving disease prognosis. Consequently, the current treatment landscape of PCa in China demonstrates distinct features. Establishing a more thorough understanding of the characteristics of Chinese patients may help provide novel insights into potential treatment strategies for PCa patients. Herein, we review the epidemiological status and differences in treatment modalities of Chinese PCa patients. In addition, we discuss the underlying socioeconomic and biological factors that contribute to such diversity and further propose directions for future efforts in optimizing the PCa treatment in China.

Analysis of risk factors for Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy in a Chinese cohort

Background

To study the risk factors of Gleason score upgrading (GSU) after radical prostatectomy (RP) in a Chinese cohort.

Methods

The data of 637 patients who underwent prostate biopsy and RP in our hospital from January 2014 to January 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The age, body mass index (BMI), prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) level, testosterone (TT) level, neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (PLR), eosinophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (ELR), aspartate aminotransferase/alanine transaminase (AST/ALT) ratio, clinical stage, the biopsy method, and pathological characteristics of specimens after biopsy and RP were collected for all patients. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to analyze the risk factors of GSU after RP. The predictive efficacy was verified with the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. We performed the analysis separately in the overall cohort and in the cohort with Gleason score (GS) = 6.

Results

In the overall cohort, 177 patients (27.79%) had GSU, and in the GS = 6 cohort, 68 patients (60.18%) had GSU. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that in the overall cohort, clinical stage ≥T2c (OR = 3.201, p < 0.001), the number of positive cores ≥3 (OR = 0.435, p = 0.04), and positive rate of biopsy (OR = 0.990, p = 0.016) can affect whether GS is upgraded, and the AUC of the combination of the three indicators for predicting the occurrence of GSU was 0.627. In the GS = 6 cohort, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that clinical stage ≥T2c (OR = 4.690, p = 0.001) was a risk factor for GSU, and the AUC predicted to occur GSU is 0.675.

Conclusion

Clinical stage ≥T2c, the number of positive cores <3, and lower positive rate of biopsy are the risk factors of GSU. This study may provide some references for clinicians to judge the accuracy of biopsy pathological grading and formulate treatment strategies, but the specific effect still needs clinical practice certification.

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.

Liproca Depot: A New Antiandrogen Treatment for Active Surveillance Patients

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in nonmorbid treatments for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer with fewer side effects than surgery or radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the tolerability, safety, and antitumor effects of the intraprostatic NanoZolid depot formulation Liproca Depot (LIDDS AB, Uppsala, Sweden) with antiandrogen 2-hydroxyflutamide (2-HOF) in men with low- or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer managed with active surveillance.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This clinical phase 2b trial, LPC-004, involved 61 patients. The 2-HOF-containing formulation Liproca Depot was injected transrectally into the prostate under ultrasound guidance. A single dose of 35% or 45% of the prostate volume (study part 1) and a fixed dose of 16 or 20 ml (study part 2) of the formulation were evaluated.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES

The primary endpoints were tolerability and the reduction in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 5 mo after injection. Antitumor effects were evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate biopsies. Quality of life was assessed using a validated questionnaire (International Prostate Symptom Score).

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

All doses were safe and well tolerated, without hormonal side effects. In part 2 of the study, the PSA reduction was greatest for the group receiving 16 ml, with an average decrease of 14%, and 95% of patients had a PSA reduction. Some 78% of patients showed a prostate volume decrease compared to baseline. Prostate MRI and biopsies confirmed stable or reduced lesion size. However, post treatment biopsies were performed at the discretion of the investigator, and not routinely. Most patients were amenable to a second injection.

CONCLUSIONS

PSA and prostate volume decreased in most patients. Indications of efficacy were shown by post-treatment MRI and biopsies demonstrating stabilization or regression in the majority of cases.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Liproca Depot is a safe, minimally invasive treatment that offers the potential for cancer control in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Further clinical evaluation is warranted.

Do patients with a PI-RADS 5 lesion identified on magnetic resonance imaging require systematic biopsy in addition to targeted biopsy?

INTRODUCTION

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy (MRI-TB) improves the detection of prostate cancer. These biopsies typically involve both a 12-core systematic biopsy (SB) and MRI-TB of the lesion. Since the majority of PI-RADS 5 lesions represent clinically significant cancers, the utility of SB in addition to MRI-TB is unclear. We evaluate the utility of SB in the setting of PI-RADS 5 lesions in biopsy naïve and active surveillance patients.

METHODS

Patients undergoing MRI-TB+SB with a PI-RADS 5 lesion were retrospectively reviewed in a prospectively collected database. Pathology obtained from the MRI-TB was then compared to that of the SB, and each was reported based on the highest Gleason Grade from the sample. In patients with a prior biopsy, we identified instances in which the MRI-TB+SB resulted in upgraded pathology and further subdivided these patients based on whether the pathology upgrade was a result of the TB or the SB.

RESULTS

We identified PI-RADS 5 lesions in 97 patients. All lesions biopsied were found to be prostate cancer, and 86.9% were clinically significant. Gleason Grade from the MRI-TB of the PI-RADS 5 lesions was the same or higher to that of the SB in all but 3 cases (3.1%). Among 59 patients with a prior prostate biopsy, 54 had upgraded pathology from MRI-TB+SB (91.5%). Of these 54 patients, MRI-TB pathology of the PI-RADS 5 lesion was the same or higher to that of the SB in 52 patients (96.3%). In all patients with higher Gleason Grade on SB than MRI-TB, the MRI-TB demonstrated GG3 or higher and SB did not change subsequent clinical management.

CONCLUSION

In the presence of a PI-RADS 5 lesion, SB offers minimal additional clinical value and could potentially be omitted when performing MRI-TB.

Mini review: Personalization of the radiation therapy management of prostate cancer using MRI-based radiomics

Decisions on how to treat prostate cancer with radiation therapy are guideline-based but as such guidelines have been developed for populations of patients, this invariably leads to overly aggressive treatment in some patients and insufficient treatment in others. Heterogeneity within prostate tumors and in metastatic sites, even within the same patient, is believed to be a major cause of treatment failure. Radiomics biomarkers, more commonly referred to as radiomics 'features", provide readily available, cost-effective, non-invasive tools for screening, detecting tumors and serial monitoring of patients, including assessments of response to therapy and identification of therapeutic complications. Radiomics offers the potential to analyse whole tumors in 3D, as well as sub-regions or 'habitats' within tumors. Combining quantitative information from imaging with pathology, demographic details and other biomarkers will pave the way for personalised treatment selection and monitoring in prostate cancer. The aim of this review is to consider if MRI-based radiomics can bridge the gap between population-based management and personalised management of prostate cancer.

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.

17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score Test Results in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) Cohort

PURPOSE

The 17-gene Oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) test predicts adverse pathology (AP) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer treated with immediate surgery. We evaluated the GPS test as a predictor of outcomes in a multicenter active surveillance cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Diagnostic biopsy tissue was obtained from men enrolled at 8 sites in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. The primary endpoint was AP (Gleason Grade Group [GG] ≥ 3, ≥ pT3a) in men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) after initial surveillance. Multivariable regression models for interval-censored data were used to evaluate the association between AP and GPS. Inverse probability of censoring weighting was applied to adjust for informative censoring. Predictiveness curves were used to evaluate how models stratified risk of AP. Association between GPS and time to upgrade on surveillance biopsy was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

GPS results were obtained for 432 men (median follow-up, 4.6 years); 101 underwent RP after a median 2.1 years of surveillance, and 52 had AP. A total of 167 men (39%) upgraded at a subsequent biopsy. GPS was significantly associated with AP when adjusted for diagnostic GG (hazards ratio [HR]/5 GPS units, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.44; P = .030), but not when also adjusted for prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD; HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.19; P = .066). Models containing PSAD and GG, or PSAD, GG, and GPS may stratify risk better than a model with GPS and GG. No association was observed between GPS and subsequent biopsy upgrade (P = .48).

CONCLUSION

In our study, the independent association of GPS with AP after initial active surveillance was not statistically significant, and there was no association with upgrading in surveillance biopsy. Adding GPS to a model containing PSAD and diagnostic GG did not significantly improve stratification of risk for AP over the clinical variables alone.

Prospective evaluation of fexapotide triflutate injection treatment of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: 4-year results

Purpose

This study was undertaken to determine the safety and efficacy of fexapotide triflutate (FT) 2.5 mg and 15 mg for the treatment of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer.

Methods

Prospective randomized transrectal intraprostatic single injection FT 2.5 mg (n = 49), FT 15 mg (n = 48) and control active surveillance (AS) (n = 49) groups were compared in 146 patients at 28 U.S. sites, with elective AS crossover (n = 18) to FT after first follow-up biopsy at 45 days. Patients were followed for 5 years including biopsies (baseline, 45 days, and 18, 36, and 54 months thereafter), and urological evaluations with PSA every 6 months. Patients with Gleason grade increase or who elected surgical or radiotherapeutic intervention exited the study and were cumulatively included in the data analysis. Percentage of normal biopsies in baseline focus quadrant, tumor grades, and volumes; and outcomes including Gleason grade in entire prostate as well as treated prostate lobe, interventions associated with Gleason grade increase and total incidence of interventions were assessed.

Results

Significantly improved long-term clinical outcomes were found after 4-year follow-up, with percentages of patients progressing to interventions with and without Gleason grade increase significantly reduced by FT single treatment. Results in the FT 15-mg group were superior to the FT 2.5-mg dose group. There were no drug-related serious adverse events (SAEs).

Conclusions

FT showed statistically significant long-term efficacy in the treatment of Grade Group 1 patients regarding clinical and pathological progression. FT 15 mg showed superior results to FT 2.5 mg. There were no drug-related SAEs; FT injection was well tolerated.

Prostate cancer adverse pathology reclassification in patients undergoing active surveillance in a long-term follow-up series

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) has become a valid option for patients with a very low risk of prostate cancer (PC) with a widespread application. There are still a few series, with a medium follow-up longer than 5 years, reporting data on pathological upgrading. The objective is to evaluate the changes in surveillance biopsies of patients with low-risk PC in a long-term follow-up and determine if a longer stay in AS could involve worse pathological findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of our institutional database of patients with PC undergoing AS during 2004 to 2018 was performed. The inclusion criteria were prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 10 ng/mL, Gleason grade 1 and T1c/T2a. Patients were assessed by serum PSA level and digital rectal examination at 6-month intervals. Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies were performed during the first year of follow-up, and every 2 or 3 years thereafter. The pathology details of biopsies were analyzed and compared with the current series on AS.

RESULTS

Three-hundred nineteen patients undergoing AS were evaluated with a median follow-up of 5.3 years and a mean age of 67.4 years. Sixty-three patients did not meet all the criteria to be considered low-risk PC but were included in the analysis. Overall, 128 patients (40.1%) underwent active treatment (84.7% of them due to pathological progression in surveillance biopsies). The proportion of patients with a reported upgrading ranged between 19.4% and 35.3%, although only the fourth biopsy showed an upgrading proportion of over 30%. Limitations include the retrospective design of the study and the existence of different protocols between other cohorts that make it difficult to compare their results.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who remained in surveillance the percentage of upgrading increased slightly with the time, being more frequent after the third-surveillance biopsy. These findings support the importance of extending surveillance biopsies for patients who remain candidates for curative treatment.

Utility of digital rectal examination in a population with prostate cancer treated with active surveillance

INTRODUCTION

Digital rectal examination (DRE) is part of the clinical evaluation of men on active surveillance (AS). The purpose of the present study is to analyze the value of DRE as a predictor of upgrading in a population of men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with AS.

METHODS

We used the prostate biopsy (PBx) database from an academic center, including PBx from 2006-2018, and identified 2029 confirmatory biopsies (CxPBx) of men treated with AS, of which 726 men had both diagnostic (initial) and CxPBx information available. We did a descriptive analysis and evaluated sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of DRE for the detection of clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Multivariable regression analysis was done to identify predictors of csPCa. The primary outcome was to evaluate DRE as a predictor of the presence of csPCa at CxPBx.

RESULTS

Among the 2029 patients with a CxPBx, 75% had PCa, and of these, 30.3% had upgrading to International Society of Urologic Pathologists (ISUP) grade ≥2. Thirteen percent of men had a suspicious DRE (done by their treating physician). Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values of DRE to detect csPCa were best with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <4 ng/ml (27%, 88%, 31%, and 87%, respectively). A suspicious DRE at CxPBx, particularly if the DRE at diagnosis was negative, was a predictor of csPCa (odds ratio [OR] 2.34, p=0.038). The main limitation of our study is the retrospective design and the lack of magnetic resonance imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe DRE should still be used as part of AS and can predict the presence of csPCa, even with low PSA values. A suspicious nodule on DRE represents a higher risk of upgrading and should prompt further assessment.

Micro-Ultrasound Imaging for Accuracy of Diagnosis in Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Prostate cancer is a frequently diagnosed malignant solid tumor in men. The accuracy of diagnosis is becoming increasingly important. This meta-analysis evaluated the accuracy of micro-ultrasound in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to recruit studies in English. The quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 protocol was used to evaluate the literature quality. Publication bias was analyzed using Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test. We calculated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for studies of micro-ultrasound imaging for prostate cancer. The results were assessed by the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (SROC). Ultimately, a univariable meta-regression and subgroup analysis, Fagan plot, and a likelihood matrix were conducted. Results: A total of seven studies containing 769 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Micro-ultrasound had a pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and an area under the SROC of 0.91, 0.49, 10, and 0.82, respectively. Based on these findings, micro-ultrasound has superior ability to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer. Conclusion: Micro-ultrasound is a more convenient and cost-effective method in real-time imaging during the biopsy procedure in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. Although micro-ultrasound has shown promising results, more clinical data and comprehensive analysis are still needed.

Can high resolution micro-ultrasound replace MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer?

High resolution micro-ultrasound (micro-u/s) is a novel technology that permits visualization of lesions suspicious for prostate cancer. The resolution of 70 μ, that of a prostatic duct, means that alterations in ductal anatomy and cellular density are readily apparent. Initial experience in multiple centers comparing it to mpMRI suggests that the sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer is comparable or superior. Specificity is comparable or mildly reduced. Micro-u/s is an inexpensive, accessible and convenient alternative to mpMRI for imaging and diagnosing prostate cancer.

The association of atrophy in baseline prostate biopsy and lower prostate cancer grade in radical prostatectomy specimens

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate whether the presence of prostate atrophy (P.A.) in negative prostate biopsy is associated with prostate cancer (P.C.a) grade at surgical pathology among men who are ultimately diagnosed with P.C.a and undergo radical prostatectomy (R.P.).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of 136 men from the placebo arm of the Reduction by Dutasteride of P.C.a Events (R.E.D.U.C.E.) trial who had a baseline prostate biopsy negative for P.C.a, and were later diagnosed with P.C.a on biopsy and underwent radical prostatectomy over the 4-year study period. The association of baseline P.A. (present/absent) with P.C.a grade (W.H.O./I.S.U.P. grade group 1 or ≥2) at surgical pathology was evaluated with logistic regression in uni- and multivariable analyses, controlling for baseline patient characteristics.

RESULTS

P.A. was observed in 74 prostate biopsies (54%). P.A. was not associated with baseline characteristics (age, body mass index, prostate-specific antigen level, prostate volume, race, family history of P.C.a, and digital rectal exam), except for chronic inflammation (p = 0.001). The presence of P.A. in baseline prostate biopsies was associated with lower risk of W.H.O./I.S.U.P. grade group ≥2 P.C.a in R.P. specimens on both univariable (O.R. = 0.39, 95% C.I. = 0.19-0.78, p = 0.008) and multivariable (O.R. = 0.43, 95% C.I. = 0.20-0.92, p = 0.029) analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Among men with a baseline prostate biopsy negative for P.C.a who were later found to have P.C.a and underwent R.P., baseline P.A. is independently associated with lower risk of W.H.O./I.S.U.P. grade group ≥2 P.C.a on surgical pathology. P.A. may be used to identify subjects at lower risk for W.H.O./I.S.U.P. ≥ 2 P.C.a and select optimal candidates for active surveillance.

RETRACTED: Recommandations françaises du Comité de Cancérologie de l’AFU – Actualisation 2018–2020 : cancer de la prostate French ccAFU guidelines – Update 2018–2020: Prostate cancer

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). Cet article est retiré de la publication à la demande des auteurs car ils ont apporté des modifications significatives sur des points scientifiques après la publication de la première version des recommandations. Le nouvel article est disponible à cette adresse: DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.007. C’est cette nouvelle version qui doit être utilisée pour citer l’article. This article has been retracted at the request of the authors, as it is not based on the definitive version of the text because some scientific data has been corrected since the first issue was published. The replacement has been published at the DOI:10.1016/j.purol.2019.01.007. That newer version of the text should be used when citing the article.

Comparison of conventional transrectal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and micro-ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in an active surveillance population: A feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance monitoring of prostate cancer is unique in that most patients have low-grade disease that is not well-visualized by any common imaging technique. High-resolution (29 MHz) micro-ultrasound is a new, real-time modality that has been demonstrated to be sensitive to significant prostate cancer and effective for biopsy targeting. This study compares micro-ultrasound imaging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and conventional ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in active surveillance.

METHODS

Nine patients on active surveillance were imaged with multiparametric (mp) MRI prior to biopsy. During the biopsy procedure, imaging and target identification was first performed using conventional ultrasound, then using micro-ultrasound. The mpMRI report was then unblinded and used to determine cognitive fusion targets. Using micro-ultrasound, biopsy samples were taken from targets in each modality, plus 12 systematic samples.

RESULTS

mpMRI and micro-ultrasound both demonstrated superior sensitivity to Gleason sum 7 or higher cancer compared to conventional ultrasound (p=0.02 McNemar's test). Micro-ultrasound detected 89% of clinically significant cancer, compared to 56% for mpMRI.

CONCLUSIONS

Micro-ultrasound may provide similar sensitivity to clinically significant prostate cancer as mpMRI and visualize all significant mpMRI targets. Unlike mpMRI, micro-ultrasound is performed in the office, in real-time during the biopsy procedure, and so is expected to maintain the cost-effectiveness of conventional ultrasound. Larger studies are needed before these results may be applied in a clinical setting.

Younger Men With Prostate Cancer Have Lower Risk of Upgrading While on Active Surveillance: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature

Active surveillance has become a popular option for patients with low risk prostate cancer. Our objective was to examine the correlation between age and the risk of Gleason upgrading and biopsy progression. A systematic search was conducted. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria including 6522 patients with a median age of 65.8 (41-86) years. Per decade decrease in age, the pooled odds ratio and hazard ratio (CI 95%) for Gleason upgrading were 0.83 (0.73-0.94) and 0.87 (0.82-0.92), and for biopsy progression were 0.80 (0.74-0.86) and 0.88 (0.79-0.99), respectively. Overall, younger patients have a lower risk of GS upgrading and biopsy progression.

Active Surveillance Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study (ASIST): Results of a Randomized Multicenter Prospective Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine, in men recently diagnosed with grade group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer, if magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with targeted biopsy could identify a greater proportion of men with GG ≥2 cancer on their confirmatory biopsy compared with systematic biopsies. The study was registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01354171).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study is a prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label trial. Eligible patients were men diagnosed with GG1 cancer within 1 yr prior to study entry in whom a confirmatory biopsy was indicated. Patients were randomized to 12-core systematic biopsy or MRI with systematic and targeted biopsy using the Artemis fusion targeting system. The primary end point was the proportion upgraded to GG ≥2 in each arm.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In total, 296 men were registered and 273 randomized. Of the MRI group, 64% had a region of interest. No difference was observed in the rate of GG ≥2 upgrading (the intent-to-treat population, p=0.7, and per-protocol [PP] population, p=0.4), GG ≥2 upgrading within each stratum separately, or GG ≥3. After central pathology review, upgrading was observed in 36/132 (27%) men in the systematic biopsy arm and 42/127 (33%) men in the MRI arm (p=0.3). Upgrading was seen in 19/137 (14%) patients in the MRI arm on targeted biopsy alone (median, 2 cores) compared with 31/136 (23%) in the systematic biopsy arm (median, 12 cores; p=0.09). In the MRI arm, 8/127 (6.5%) patients had GG ≥2 disease identified on targeted biopsy, but ≤GG1 on the systematic biopsy, and 10/127 (7.9%) patients had GG ≥2 disease identified by systematic biopsy but ≤GG1 on targeted biopsy. Significant differences in upgrading on targeted biopsies were seen between sites, likely reflecting different levels of expertise with the targeted biopsy technique.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of MRI with targeted biopsies to systematic biopsies did not significantly increase the upgrading rate compared with systematic biopsy alone. Furthermore, 2-core targeted biopsies alone resulted in a nonsignificant trend to less upgrading than 12-core systematic biopsy (p=0.09). In men on active surveillance, targeted biopsies identify most, but not all, clinically significant cancers.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer

Active surveillance has gained popularity as an acceptable management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Successful utilization of this strategy can delay or prevent unnecessary interventions - thereby reducing morbidity associated with overtreatment. The usefulness of active surveillance primarily depends on correct identification of patients with low-risk disease. However, current population-wide algorithms and tools do not adequately exclude high-risk disease, thereby limiting the confidence of clinicians and patients to go on active surveillance. Novel imaging tools such as mpMRI provide information about the size and location of potential cancers enabling more informed treatment decisions. The term “multiparametric” in prostate mpMRI refers to the summation of several MRI series into one examination whose initial goal is to identify potential clinically-significant lesions suitable for targeted biopsy. The main advantages of MRI are its superior anatomic resolution and the lack of ionizing radiation. Recently, the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System has been instituted as an international standard for unifying mpMRI results. The imaging sequences in mpMRI defined by Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 includes: T2-weighted MRI, diffusion-weighted MRI, derived apparent-diffusion coefficient from diffusion-weighted MRI, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. The use of mpMRI prior to starting active surveillance could prevent those with missed, high-grade lesions from going on active surveillance, and reassure those with minimal disease who may be hesitant to take part in active surveillance. Although larger validation studies are still necessary, preliminary results suggest mpMRI has a role in selecting patients for active surveillance. Less certain is the role of mpMRI in monitoring patients on active surveillance, as data on this will take a long time to mature. The biggest obstacles to routine use of prostate MRI are quality control, cost, reproducibility, and access. Nevertheless, there is great a potential for mpMRI to improve outcomes and quality of treatment. The major roles of MRI will continue to expand and its emerging use in standard of care approaches becomes more clearly defined and supported by increasing levels of data.

Can active surveillance really reduce the harms of overdiagnosing prostate cancer? A reflection of real life clinical practice in the PRIAS study

Background

Active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) appears to provide excellent long-term PCa-specific and overall survival. The choice for AS as initial treatment is mainly based on avoiding side effects from invasive treatment; but AS entails regular check-ups and the possibility of still having to switch or deciding to switch to invasive treatment. Here, we assessed the long-term follow-up data from AS in real life clinical practices.

Methods

Data from the first 500 men, enrolled in PRIAS before July 2008 by 30 centers across 8 countries, were analyzed to provide long-term follow-up results. Men were advised to be regularly examined with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests, digital rectal examinations, and prostate biopsies. Men were advised to switch to invasive treatment if they had disease reclassification [Gleason score (GS) ≥3+4 on biopsy, more than two positive biopsy cores, a stage higher than cT2] or a PSA-doubling time of 0-3 years. We assessed time on AS, outcomes and reasons for discontinuing AS, and rates of potential unnecessary biopsies and treatments.

Results

The median follow-up time was 6.5 years. During this period, 325 (65%) men discontinued after a median of 2.3 years and 121 (24%) men had no recent (>1 year) data-update after a median of 7.3 years. The remaining 54 (11%) men were confirmed to be still on AS. Most men discontinued based on protocol advice; 38% had other reasons. During follow-up, 838 biopsy sessions were performed of which 79% to 90% did not lead to reclassification, depending on the criteria. Of the 325 discontinued men, 112 subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), 126 underwent radiotherapy, 57 switched to watchful waiting (WW) or died, and 30 had another or unknown treatment. RP results were available of 99 men: 34% to 68%, depending on definition, had favorable outcomes; 50% of unfavorable the outcomes occurred in the first 2 years. Of the 30 (6%) men who died, 1 man died due to PCa.

Conclusions

These data, reflecting real life clinical practice, show that more than half of men switched to invasive treatment within 2.3 years, indicating limitations to the extent in which AS is able to reduce the adverse effects of overdiagnosis. Therefore, despite guidelines stating that PCa diagnosis must be uncoupled from treatment, it remains important to avoid overdiagnosing PCa as much as possible.

Comparison of Pathological and Oncologic Outcomes of Favorable Risk Gleason Score 3 + 4 and Low Risk Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer: Considerations for Active Surveillance

PURPOSE

Recent NCCN^® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) Guidelines® show that patients with biopsy Gleason score 3 + 4/Grade Group 2 but otherwise favorable features are active surveillance candidates. However, little is known about the long-term outcomes compared to that in men in the low risk Gleason score 6/Grade Group 1 group. We sought to clarify the risk of adverse features and oncologic outcomes in surgically treated, favorable Grade Group 2 vs 1 cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We queried our prospectively maintained radical prostatectomy database for all 8,095 patients with biopsy Grade Group 1 or 2 prostate cancer who otherwise fulfilled the NCCN low risk definition of prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml and cT2a or less, and who underwent radical prostatectomy from 1987 to 2014. Multivariable logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier methods were used to compare pathological and oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

Organ confined disease was present in 93.9% and 82.6% of Grade Group 1 and favorable intermediate risk Grade Group 2 cases while seminal vesicle invasion was noted in 1.7% and 4.7%, and nodal disease was noted in 0.3% and 1.8%, respectively (all p <0.0001). On multivariable logistic regression biopsy proven Grade Group 2 disease was associated with a threefold greater risk of nonorgan confined disease (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.7-5.7, p <0.001). The incidence of late treatment (more than 90 days from surgery) in Grade Group 1 vs 2 was 3.1% vs 8.5% for hormonal therapy and 6.0% vs 12.2% for radiation (p <0.001). In the Grade Group 1 vs 2 cohorts the 10-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rate was 88.9% vs 81.2% and the 10-year systemic progression-free survival rate was 99% vs 96.5% (each p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Men at favorable risk with Grade Group 2 disease who are considering active surveillance should be informed of the risks of harboring adverse pathological features which impact secondary therapies and an increased risk of cancer progression.

Epigenetic risk score improves prostate cancer risk assessment

BACKGROUND

Early detection of aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) remains crucial for effective treatment of patients. However, PCa screening remains controversial due to a high rate of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. To better reconcile both objectives, more effective methods for assessing disease severity at the time of diagnosis are needed.

METHODS

The relationship between DNA-methylation and high-grade PCa was examined in a cohort of 102 prospectively enrolled men who received standard 12-core prostate biopsies. EpiScore, an algorithm that quantifies the relative DNA methylation intensities of GSTP1, RASSF1, and APC in prostate biopsy tissue, was evaluated as a method to compensate for biopsy under-sampling and improve risk stratification at the time of diagnosis.

RESULTS

DNA-methylation intensities of GSTP1, RASSF1, and APC were higher in biopsy cores from men diagnosed with GS ≥ 7 cancer compared to men with diagnosed GS 6 disease. This was confirmed by EpiScore, which was significantly higher for subjects with high-grade biopsies and higher NCCN risk categories (both P < 0.001). In patients diagnosed with GS ≥ 7, increased levels of DNA-methylation were present, not only in the high-grade biopsy cores, but also in other cores with no or low-grade disease (P < 0.001). By combining EpiScore with traditional clinical risk factors into a logistic regression model, the prediction of high GS reached an AUC of 0.82 (95%CI: 0.73-0.91) with EpiScore, DRE, and atypical histological findings as most important contributors.

CONCLUSIONS

In men diagnosed with PCa, DNA-methylation profiling can detect under-sampled high-risk PCa in prostate biopsy specimens through a field effect. Predictive accuracy increased when EpiScore was combined with other clinical risk factors. These results suggest that EpiScore could aid in the detection of occult high-grade disease at the time of diagnosis, thereby improving the selection of candidates for Active Surveillance.

[Active surveillance of prostate cancer]

Several prospective studies have demonstrated the safety of active surveillance as a first treatment of prostate cancer. It spares many patients of a useless treatment, with its potential sequelae. Patients with a low-risk cancer are all candidates for this approach, as recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Some patients with an intermediate risk could be also concerned by active surveillance, but this is still being discussed. Currently, the presence of grade 4 lesions on biopsy is a contra-indication. Modalities included a repeated prostate specific antigen test and systematic rebiopsy during the first year after diagnosis. MRI is now proposed to better select patients at inclusion and also during surveillance. No life style changes or drugs are significantly associated with a longer duration of surveillance.

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.

[CCAFU french national guidelines 2016-2018 on prostate cancer]

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the guidelines national committee CCAFU was to propose updated french guidelines for localized and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

A Medline search was achieved between 2013 and 2016, as regards diagnosis, options of treatment and follow-up of PCa, to evaluate different references with levels of evidence.

RESULTS

Epidemiology, classification, staging systems, diagnostic evaluation are reported. Disease management options are detailed. Recommandations are reported according to the different clinical situations. Active surveillance is a major option in low risk PCa. Radical prostatectomy remains a standard of care of localized PCa. The three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy is the technical standard. A dose of > 74Gy is recommended. Moderate hypofractionation provides short-term biochemical control comparable to conventional fractionation. In case of intermediate risk PCa, radiotherapy can be combined with short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In case of high risk disease, long-term ADT remains the standard of care. ADT is the backbone therapy of metastatic disease. In men with metastases at first presentation, upfront chemotherapy combined with ADT should be considered as a new standard. In case of metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC), new hormonal treatments and chemotherapy provide a better control of tumor progression and increase survival.

CONCLUSIONS

These updated french guidelines will contribute to increase the level of urological care for the diagnosis and treatment for prostate cancer. © 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Population-based study of grade progression in patients who harboured Gleason 3 + 3

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate (1) the time interval between a decision to commence on active surveillance (AS) and grade progression in community practice; (2) factors predicting grade progression in localised prostate cancer (CaP) patients apparently undergoing AS.

METHODS

Data from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria were used to analyze men with Gleason 3 + 3 CaP or less who had at least one repeat biopsy. Unadjusted and adjusted 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess the time to grade progression. Both univariate and multivariate analyses for grade progression were performed using Cox proportional hazards.

RESULTS

The cohort included 951 men. Overall, 39% of men had Gleason grade reclassified to a higher risk disease state with median of 2.2 years [IQR 1.2-3.7 years]. Men who harboured cT2 disease were 30% more likely to have upgrading compared to men with cT1 disease (adjusted HR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.6, p = 0.048). Half of the men with cT2 in our cohort had their Gleason grade reclassified within 1.6 years from diagnosis as compared with 2.7 years for the cT1 group. The presence of percentage of core involvement >25.0% and a PSA velocity of >1.01 ng/mL/year remained significant for a higher progression rate. The adjusted HR: 1.6; 95% CI [1.2-2.3], p = 0.004; adjusted HR: 1.6, 95% CI [1.2-2.4], p = 0.021, for percent of core involvement of 25.1-37.5%, and ≥37.6%, respectively. The adjusted HRs and p value associated with PSA velocity were 1.5; 95% CI [1.1-2.1], p = 0.016 and 1.6; 95% CI [1.2-2.3], p = 0.003 for PSA velocity values of 1.01-2 ng/mL per year and >2 ng/mL per year, respectively. Men who were diagnosed in regional hospital and subsequently had biopsy in metropolitan hospital were twice at risk of having Gleason upgrade compared to those whom both diagnostic and surveillance biopsies were carried out in metropolitan hospitals (adjusted HR: 1.9; 95% CI 1.1-3.3, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

When placing men on AS and considering time to histologic progression, clinicians should pay particular attention to the likely accuracy of the diagnostic specimen, their tumour stage, volume of tumour (percent of core involvement), and rising PSA. Those diagnosed with T2 disease and had >25.0% of core involvement, and a PSA velocity greater than 1 ng/mL per year is at particular risk for more rapid disease progression and, for this reason, should be counselled on the importance of following the recommended surveillance regimen. For half of these men, their disease will have 'progressed' according to biopsy results in 2 years.

Active Surveillance in Younger Men With Prostate Cancer

Purpose The suitability of younger patients with prostate cancer (PCa) for initial active surveillance (AS) has been questioned on the basis of eventual treatment necessity and concerns of safety; however, the role of age on surveillance outcomes has not been well defined. Patients and Methods We identified men managed with AS at our institution with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. The primary study objective was to examine the association of age with risk of biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade during AS. We also examined the association of age with related end points, including overall biopsy-determined progression, definitive treatment, and pathologic and biochemical outcomes after delayed radical prostatectomy (RP), using descriptive statistics, the Kaplan-Meier method, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Results A total of 1,433 patients were followed for a median of 49 months; 74% underwent initial biopsy at a referring institution. Median age at diagnosis was 63 years, including 599 patients (42%) ≤ 60 years old and 834 (58%) > 60 years old. The 3- and 5-year biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade-free rates were 73% and 55%, respectively, for men ≤ 60 years old compared with 64% and 48%, respectively, for men older than 60 years ( P < .01). On Cox regression analysis, younger age was independently associated with lower risk of biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade (hazard ratio per 1-year decrease, 0.969 [95% CI, 0.956 to 0.983]; P < .01), and persisted upon restriction to men meeting strict AS inclusion criteria. There was no significant association between younger age and risk of definitive treatment or risk of biochemical recurrence after delayed RP. Conclusion Younger patient age was associated with decreased risk of biopsy-based Gleason score upgrade during AS but not with risk of definitive treatment in the intermediate term. AS represents a strategy to mitigate overtreatment in young patients with low-risk PCa in the early term.

Limitations in Predicting Organ Confined Prostate Cancer in Patients with Gleason Pattern 4 on Biopsy: Implications for Active Surveillance

PURPOSE

In prostate cancer biopsy Gleason score predicts stage and helps determine active surveillance suitability. Evidence suggests that small incremental differences in the quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 on biopsy stratify disease extent, biochemical failure following surgery and eligibility for active surveillance. We explored the overall quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 levels and adverse outcomes in patients with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer to whom active surveillance may be offered under expanded criteria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed the records of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 (3 + 3) or 7 (3 + 4) who underwent radical prostatectomy from January 2008 to August 2015. Age, prostate specific antigen, Gleason score, quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4, overall percent positive cores (percent of prostate cancer) and clinical stage were explored as predictors of nonorgan confined disease and time to failure after radical prostatectomy.

RESULTS

In 1,255 patients biopsy Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) was associated with T3 or greater disease at radical prostatectomy in 35.0% compared with Gleason score 6 (3 + 3) in 19.0% (p <0.001). On multivariate analysis for each quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 increase there were 2% higher odds of T3 or greater disease (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.04, p <0.001). When stratified, patients with Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) only approximated the pT3 rates of Gleason score 6 (3 + 3) when prostate specific antigen was less than 8 ng/ml and the percent of prostate cancer was less than 15%. In those cases the quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 had less effect. Time to failure after radical prostatectomy was worse in Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) than 6 (3 + 3) cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 helps predict advanced disease and Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) is associated with worse outcomes. However, the impact of the quantitative percent of Gleason pattern 4 on adverse pathological and clinical outcomes is best used in combination with prostate specific antigen, age and disease volume since each has a greater impact on predicting nonorgan confined disease. The calculated absolute risk of T3 or greater can be used in shared decision making on prostate cancer treatment by patients and clinicians.

PRECISION MANAGEMENT OF LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER

INTRODUCTION

The vast majority of men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer die of other causes, highlighting the importance of determining which patient has a risk of death from prostate cancer. Precision management of prostate cancer patients includes distinguishing which men have potentially lethal disease and employing strategies for determining which treatment modality appropriately balances the desire to achieve a durable response while preventing unnecessary overtreatment.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we highlight precision approaches to risk assessment and a context for the precision-guided application of definitive therapy. We focus on three dilemmas relevant to the diagnosis of localized prostate cancer: screening, the decision to treat, and postoperative management.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

In the last five years, numerous precision tools have emerged with potential benefit to the patient. However, to achieve optimal outcome, the decision to employ one or more of these tests must be considered in the context of prevailing conventional factors. Moreover, performance and interpretation of a molecular or imaging precision test remains practitioner-dependent. The next five years will witness increased marriage of molecular and imaging biomarkers for improved multi-modal diagnosis and discrimination of disease that is aggressive versus truly indolent.

What is the best way not to treat prostate cancer?

INTRODUCTION

Selective treatment approaches for prostate cancer (PCa) are warranted given the highly varied nature of the disease and the consequences associated with definitive therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We present a stepwise overview of strategies optimized to not treat PCa, ranging from improved screening practices that seek to maximize the yield at initial diagnosis, as well as refinements to clinical risk prediction and the performance of active surveillance.

RESULTS

Improved adherence to screening guidelines offering simplistic, rational practice recommendations are poised to improve the performance of early detection strategies. In addition, measures to improve the quality of PCa screening would include greater integration of novel markers with higher specificity for clinically significant disease, in an effort to stem the tide of over-diagnosis and consequential overtreatment of low-grade tumors. For men diagnosed with PCa, the use of validated, multi-variable risk stratification stands to offer greater certainty in initial management choices: consideration of active surveillance for those with low-risk status, and definitive therapy for men with intermediate and high-risk features. We review the efficacy and nature of active surveillance protocols, and offer a context for refinements that may be anticipated with future study.

CONCLUSIONS

The question of how best to not treat prostate cancer is often more complex than policies of universal treatment, yet is integral to minimize morbidity of over-treatment in patients with low-risk tumors. An array of refined risk stratification instruments, biomarkers, and genomic assays seek to improve the confidence both prior to, and following diagnosis.

Risk score predicts high-grade prostate cancer in DNA-methylation positive, histopathologically negative biopsies

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis is challenging because efforts for effective, timely treatment of men with significant cancer typically result in over-diagnosis and repeat biopsies. The presence or absence of epigenetic aberrations, more specifically DNA-methylation of GSTP1, RASSF1, and APC in histopathologically negative prostate core biopsies has resulted in an increased negative predictive value (NPV) of ∼90% and thus could lead to a reduction of unnecessary repeat biopsies. Here, it is investigated whether, in methylation-positive men, DNA-methylation intensities could help to identify those men harboring high-grade (Gleason score ≥7) PCa, resulting in an improved positive predictive value.

METHODS

Two cohorts, consisting of men with histopathologically negative index biopsies, followed by a positive or negative repeat biopsy, were combined. EpiScore, a methylation intensity algorithm was developed in methylation-positive men, using area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic as metric for performance. Next, a risk score was developed combining EpiScore with traditional clinical risk factors to further improve the identification of high-grade (Gleason Score ≥7) cancer.

RESULTS

Compared to other risk factors, detection of DNA-methylation in histopathologically negative biopsies was the most significant and important predictor of high-grade cancer, resulting in a NPV of 96%. In methylation-positive men, EpiScore was significantly higher for those with high-grade cancer detected upon repeat biopsy, compared to those with either no or low-grade cancer. The risk score resulted in further improvement of patient risk stratification and was a significantly better predictor compared to currently used metrics as PSA and the prostate cancer prevention trial (PCPT) risk calculator (RC). A decision curve analysis indicated strong clinical utility for the risk score as decision-making tool for repeat biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Low DNA-methylation levels in PCa-negative biopsies led to a NPV of 96% for high-grade cancer. The risk score, comprising DNA-methylation intensity and traditional clinical risk factors, improved the identification of men with high-grade cancer, with a maximum avoidance of unnecessary repeat biopsies. This risk score resulted in better patient risk stratification and significantly outperformed current risk prediction models such as PCPTRC and PSA. The risk score could help to identify patients with histopathologically negative biopsies harboring high-grade PCa. Prostate 76:1078-1087, 2016. © 2016 The Authors. The Prostate Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Primary Gleason pattern upgrading in contemporary patients with D'Amico low-risk prostate cancer: implications for future biomarkers and imaging modalities

OBJECTIVE

To retrospectively assess the rate of high-grade primary Gleason upgrading (HGPGU) to primary Gleason pattern 4 or 5 in a contemporary cohort of patients with D'Amico low-risk prostate cancer including those who fulfilled Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria, and to develop a tool for HGPGU prediction. HGPGU is a contraindication in most active surveillance (AS) and focal therapy protocols.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 10 616 patients with localised prostate cancer were treated at a high-volume European tertiary care centre from 2010 to 2015 with radical prostatectomy. Analyses were restricted to 1 819 patients with D'Amico low-risk prostate cancer (17.1%) with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of <10.0 ng/mL, cT1c-cT2a and Gleason score ≤6, and were repeated within 772 of the men (7.3%) who fulfilled the PRIAS criteria for AS (PSA level of ≤10 ng/mL, T1c-T2, Gleason score ≤6, PSA density (PSAD) of <0.2 ng/mL² , ≤2 positive cores). Uni- and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted, testing predictors of HGPGU. The final logistic regression model was based on the most informative variables.

RESULTS

There was HGPGU in 88 (4.8%) patients with D'Amico low-risk prostate cancer and in 32 (4.1%) of the subgroup who were PRIAS eligible. Multivariable analysis predicting HGPGU for the patients with D'Amico low-risk yielded three independent predictors: age, PSAD, and clinical tumour stage (P = 0.008, P = 0.005 and P = 0.021, respectively). Within the same patients, the model using all vs the most informative variables resulted in area under the curves (AUCs) of 69.2% and 68.3%, respectively. Multivariable analysis of those who were PRIAS eligible, yielded age and number of positive cores as independent predictors of HGPGU (P = 0.002 and P = 0.049, respectively; AUC 64.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The low accuracy (invariably <70%) for HGPGU prediction in both patients with D'Amico low-risk prostate cancer and PRIAS eligibility indicates that these variables have poor predictive ability in contemporary patients. Despite HGPGU being a rare phenomenon, it may have life threatening implications and consequently alternatives such as biomarkers, genetic markers, or imaging modalities at re-biopsy are needed.

Gleason group concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens: A cohort study from Prostate Cancer Outcome Registry - Victoria

Background

A new prostate cancer (PCa) prognostic grading system [Gleason groups (GGs)] has been proposed based on the contemporary Gleason scores (GSs), which has five simplified prognostic categories. The objective of this study was to evaluate the agreement between the GGs of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens and to identify predictive factors for upgrading GGs.

Methods

A total of 5339 cases of RP notified to the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry, Victoria, Australia over 6 years (2009–2014) from 46 hospitals, were included. The upgrading was evaluated using the new PCa prognostic grading system, the International Society of Urologic Pathology grade groups, which has five prognostic categories. GG 1 is GS ≤ 6, GG 2 is GS 3 + 4 = 7, GG 3 is GS 4 + 3 = 7, GG 4 is GS 8, and GG 5 is GS 9 and 10. Predictors of upgrading were assessed using univariate and multivariate models.

Results

The GG of prostate biopsies and RP specimens were concordant in 54.5% of cases, while 31.1% were upgraded and 14.3% were downgraded. Longer time interval between biopsy and RP [44–99 days: odds ratio (OR) = 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.1–1.6; > 99 days: OR = 3.0, 95% CI = 2.4–3.8), and RP performed in a metropolitan hospital (biopsy in a regional hospital: OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.6–3.2, biopsy in a metropolitan hospital: OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.2–2.2) were significant predictors of GG upgrading. Patients who were diagnosed by transperineal biopsy compared to transrectal ultrasound (OR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.5–0.8) and higher percentage of positive biopsy cassettes (25–62.5%: OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.6–0.8, > 62.5: OR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.5–0.8) were significantly associated with less likelihood of upgrade.

Conclusion

The lack of concordance among hospitals may be attributable to the specialist expertise of the pathologist. Expert review of specimens may help to overcome this discordance. Clinicians should consider clinical parameters and potential limitations of the GG at biopsy when making treatment decisions with regard to PCa.

Targeted proteomics identifies liquid-biopsy signatures for extracapsular prostate cancer

Biomarkers are rapidly gaining importance in personalized medicine. Although numerous molecular signatures have been developed over the past decade, there is a lack of overlap and many biomarkers fail to validate in independent patient cohorts and hence are not useful for clinical application. For these reasons, identification of novel and robust biomarkers remains a formidable challenge. We combine targeted proteomics with computational biology to discover robust proteomic signatures for prostate cancer. Quantitative proteomics conducted in expressed prostatic secretions from men with extraprostatic and organ-confined prostate cancers identified 133 differentially expressed proteins. Using synthetic peptides, we evaluate them by targeted proteomics in a 74-patient cohort of expressed prostatic secretions in urine. We quantify a panel of 34 candidates in an independent 207-patient cohort. We apply machine-learning approaches to develop clinical predictive models for prostate cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Our results demonstrate that computationally guided proteomics can discover highly accurate non-invasive biomarkers.

Proteomic technologies are capable of identifying thousands of proteins in biological samples, but biomarker applications are lagging. Here the authors use Multiple Reaction Monitoring Mass Spectrometry to delineate peptide signatures that accurately distinguish between defined prostate cancer patient risk groups.