Acceptance and durability of surveillance as a management choice in men with screen-detected, low-risk prostate cancer: improved outcomes with stringent enrollment criteria

Cost-utility analysis of focal high-intensity focussed ultrasound vs active surveillance for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer using a Markov multi-state model

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of focal high-intensity focussed ultrasound (F-HIFU) compared to active surveillance (AS) in patients with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer, in France.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A Markov multi-state model was elaborated for this purpose. Our analyses were conducted from the French National Health Insurance perspective, with a time horizon of 10 years and a 4% discount rate for cost and effectiveness. A secondary analysis used a 30-year time horizon. Costs are presented in 2016 Euros (€), and effectiveness is expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Model parameters' value (probabilities for transitions between health states, and cost and utility of health states) is supported by systematic literature reviews (PubMed) and random effect meta-analyses. The cost of F-HIFU in our model was the temporary tariff attributed by the French Ministry of Health to the overall treatment of prostate cancer by HIFU (€6047). Our model was analysed using Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA). Uncertainty about the value of the model parameters was handled through probabilistic analyses.

RESULTS

The five health states of our model were as follows: initial state (AS or F-HIFU), radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, metastasis, and death. Transition probabilities from the initial F-HIFU state relied on four articles eligible for our meta-analyses. All were non-comparative studies. Utilities relied on a single cohort in San Diego, CA, USA. For a fictive cohort of 1000 individuals followed for 10 years, F-HIFU would be €207 520 more costly and would yield 382 less QALYs than AS, which means that AS is cost-effective when compared to F-HIFU. For a threshold value varying from €0 to 100 000/QALY, the probability of AS being cost-effective compared to F-HIFU varied from 56.5% to 60%. This level of uncertainty was in the same range with a 30-year time horizon.

CONCLUSION

Given existing published data, our results suggest that AS is cost-effective compared to F-HIFU in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer, but with high uncertainty. This uncertainty must be scaled down by continuing to supply the model with new published data and ideally through a randomised clinical trial that includes cost-effectiveness analyses.

Defining and Measuring Adherence in Observational Studies Assessing Outcomes of Real-world Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Evidence-based guidelines for active surveillance (AS), a treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer, recommend regular follow-up at periodic intervals to monitor disease progression. However, gaps in monitoring can lead to delayed detection of cancer progression, leading to a missed window of curability.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify the extent to which real-world observational studies reported adherence to monitoring protocols among prostate cancer patients on AS. When reported, we sought to characterize definitions of adherence.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We systematically reviewed observational studies assessing outcomes of prostate cancer patients on AS, published before March 22, 2019 in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Adherence definitions were considered time bound if they included prespecified time and binary if adherence was assessed but did not specify a time interval. We assessed study quality using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Forty-five studies met our inclusion criteria. Eleven studies did not report any data on adherence to AS protocols. Twenty-five studies did not explicitly measure adherence, but provided relevant data (eg, number of patients who received a repeat biopsy). Six studies reported adherence using a time-bound definition, while three studies used a binary definition. Twenty-three studies provided information on patients lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies reporting outcomes of patients on AS did not measure or report adherence. When reported, adherence was often not time specific. As some AS patients will benefit from maintaining a window of curability, clinical practices and future studies should track and report adherence and associated factors.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed real-world observational studies examining outcomes of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. Most studies did not clearly define or report adherence to monitoring protocols, which is important to consider for appropriate disease management.

The management of active surveillance in prostate cancer: validation of the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study risk calculator with the Spanish Urological Association Registry

The follow up of patients on active surveillance requires to repeat prostate biopsies. Predictive models that identify patients at low risk of progression or reclassification are essential to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies. The aim of this study is to validate the Prostate Active Surveillance Study risk calculator (PASS-RC) in the multicentric Spanish Urological Association Registry of patients on active surveillance (AS), from common clinical practice.

Active surveillance: a cautionary tale

Objective

To determine if the practice of active surveillance for prostate cancer (PCa) at the District General Hospital (DGH) level produces outcomes in keeping with those published from clinical trials.

Subjects

A cohort of 47 patients started on active surveillance for prostate cancer in 2002–2003.

Methods

Retrospective review of case notes, electronic records and the regional cancer register.

Results

This cohort of patients had significantly higher disease-specific mortality and greater progression to palliative forms of management compared to previously published studies.

Conclusion

The implementation of AS in routine clinical practice may be inconsistent, potentially leading to compromised patient outcomes.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer

It is worth distinguishing between the two strategies of expectant management for prostate cancer. Watchful waiting entails administering non-curative androgen deprivation therapy to patients on development of symptomatic progression, whereas active surveillance entails delivering curative treatment on signs of disease progression. The objectives of the two management strategies and the patients enrolled in either are different: (i) to review the role of active surveillance as a management strategy for patients with low-risk prostate cancer; and (ii) review the benefits and pitfalls of active surveillance. We carried out a systematic review of active surveillance for prostate cancer in the literature using the National Center for Biotechnology Information's electronic database, PubMed. We carried out a search in English using the terms: active surveillance, prostate cancer, watchful waiting and conservative management. Selected studies were required to have a comprehensive description of the demographic and disease characteristics of the patients at the time of diagnosis, inclusion criteria for surveillance, and a protocol for the patients' follow up. Review articles were included, but not multiple papers from the same datasets. Active surveillance appears to reduce overtreatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer without compromising cancer-specific survival at 10 years. Therefore, active surveillance is an option for select patients who want to avoid the side-effects inherent to the different types of immediate treatment. However, inclusion criteria for active surveillance and the most appropriate method of monitoring patients on active surveillance have not yet been standardized.

Expectant management for men with early stage prostate cancer

Since the dissemination of prostate-specific antigen screening, most men with prostate cancer are now diagnosed with localized, low-risk prostate cancer that is unlikely to be lethal. Nevertheless, nearly all of these men undergo primary treatment with surgery or radiation, placing them at risk for longstanding side effects, including erectile dysfunction and impaired urinary function. Active surveillance and other observational strategies (ie, expectant management) have produced excellent long-term disease-specific survival and minimal morbidity for men with prostate cancer. Despite this, expectant management remains underused for men with localized prostate cancer. In this review, various approaches to the expectant management of men with prostate cancer are summarized, including watchful waiting and active surveillance strategies. Contemporary cancer-specific and health care quality-of-life outcomes are described for each of these approaches. Finally, contemporary patterns of use, potential disparities in care, and ongoing research and controversies surrounding expectant management of men with localized prostate cancer are discussed.

Development, validation and evaluation of an instrument for active monitoring of men with clinically localised prostate cancer: systematic review, cohort studies and qualitative study

Background

Active surveillance [(AS), sometimes called active monitoring (AM)],is a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended management option for men with clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). It aims to target radical treatment only to those who would benefit most. Little consensus exists nationally or internationally about safe and effective protocols for AM/AS or triggers that indicate if or when men should move to radical treatment.

Objective

The aims of this project were to review how prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been used in AM/AS programmes; to develop and test the validity of a new model for predicting future PSA levels; to develop an instrument, based on PSA, that would be acceptable and effective for men and clinicians to use in clinical practice; and to design a robust study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the instrument.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to investigate how PSA is currently used to monitor men in worldwide AM/AS studies. A model for PSA change with age was developed using Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) data and validated using data from two PSA-era cohorts and two pre-PSA-era cohorts. The model was used to derive 95% PSA reference ranges (PSARRs) across ages. These reference ranges were used to predict the onset of metastases or death from PCa in one of the pre-PSA-era cohorts. PSARRs were incorporated into an active monitoring system (AMS) and demonstrated to 18 clinicians and 20 men with PCa from four NHS trusts. Qualitative interviews investigated patients’ and clinicians’ views about current AM/AS protocols and the acceptability of the AMS within current practice.

Results

The systematic review found that the most commonly used triggers for clinical review of PCa were PSA doubling time (PSADT) < 3 years or PSA velocity (PSAv) > 1 ng/ml/year. The model for PSA change (developed using ProtecT study data) predicted PSA values in AM/AS cohorts within 2 ng/ml of observed PSA in up to 79% of men. Comparing the three PSA markers, there was no clear optimal approach to alerting men to worsening cancer. The PSARR and PSADT markers improved the modelc-statistic for predicting death from PCa by 0.11 (21%) and 0.13 (25%), respectively, compared with using diagnostic information alone [PSA, age, tumour stage (T-stage)]. Interviews revealed variation in clinical practice regarding eligibility and follow-up protocols. Patients and clinicians perceive current AM/AS practice to be framed by uncertainty, ranging from uncertainty about selection of eligible AM/AS candidates to uncertainty about optimum follow-up protocols and thresholds for clinical review/radical treatment. Patients and clinicians generally responded positively to the AMS. The impact of the AMS on clinicians’ decision-making was limited by a lack of data linking AMS values to long-term outcomes and by current clinical practice, which viewed PSA measures as one of several tools guiding clinical decisions in AM/AS. Patients reported that they would look to clinicians, rather than to a tool, to direct decision-making.

Limitations

The quantitative findings were severely hampered by a lack of clinical outcomes or events (such as metastases). The qualitative findings were limited through reliance on participants’ reports of practices and recollections of events rather than observations of actual interactions.

Conclusions

Patients and clinicians found that the instrument provided additional, potentially helpful, information but were uncertain about the current usefulness of the risk model we developed for routine management. Comparison of the model with other monitoring strategies will require clinical outcomes from ongoing AM/AS studies.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Transperineal Template Guided Prostate Biopsy Selects Candidates for Active Surveillance--How Many Cores are Enough?

PURPOSE

Most prostate cancer active surveillance protocols recommend a confirmatory biopsy within 3 to 6 months of diagnosis. Transperineal template guided biopsy is an approach to improve the detection of high grade prostate cancer. However, to our knowledge the optimal technique is unknown. We evaluated the relative performance of 2 transperineal template guided biopsy approaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approved prospective databases at Virginia Mason and University of Michigan were used. Men eligible for active surveillance based on initial 12-core biopsy demonstrating NCCN® guideline low risk prostate cancer were included in study. All men underwent confirmatory transperineal template guided biopsy between 2005 and 2014, and within 6 months of diagnosis. The biopsy technique was based on a 24-core template with 12 anterior and 12 posterior cores or a template based on gland volume with an average of 1 core per cc. Outcome comparisons were made by the chi-square and Fisher exact tests, the Welch t-test and linear regression.

RESULTS

Of the 135 men 46 underwent 24-core biopsy and 89 underwent volume based biopsy (median 62 cores). No statistically significant difference was noted in the prevalence of upgrading (35% vs 29%, p = 0.64) or complications (9% vs 16%, p = 0.38) between the 24-core and volume based groups. The difference in the probability of upgrading by volume based biopsy adjusted for age, prostate specific antigen, prostate volume, clinical stage and number of prior biopsies was -4% (95% CI -24 to 14%, p = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant difference was not detected in upgrading or morbidity between a 24-core template and a more exhaustive volume based template. A less invasive 24-core transperineal template guided biopsy strategy may suffice to accurately identify men who are appropriate for active surveillance.

Response to the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force decision on prostate cancer screening

The population-level data demonstrate that the inception of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has lowered mortality for prostate cancer over the past 2 decades. However, more recent evidence from randomized trials has presented conflicting results regarding the benefit of PSA screening for prostate cancer mortality. Using available data, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force recently recommended against PSA screening for prostate cancer. However, prostate cancer continues to kill over 30,000 men annually, and as such, completely abandoning screening for this disease is a disservice to many patients. Rather, the emphasis should be on utilizing evidence-based medicine to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment through less frequent screening for low-risk individuals or those unlikely to benefit from screening, halting further screening when appropriate, and utilizing observational strategies in patients unlikely to suffer clinically significant effects of prostate cancer over their anticipated life expectancy.

Psychosocial aspects of active surveillance

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the literature on psychosocial responses to active surveillance as well as educational and support strategies to promote adherence.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are two prevalent responses among men undergoing active surveillance; anxiety and uncertainty. The education of a patient about low-risk prostate cancer as well as the inquiry by the physician into patient's priorities and goals with respect to their prostate cancer diagnosis provide opportunities to facilitate a collaborative relationship between the physician and the patient. Supplemental support services for men undergoing active surveillance, including support groups and Internet-based interventions continue to be researched in relation to their role in promoting adherence to active surveillance.

SUMMARY

Active surveillance continues to remain a highly valued management approach for men with early stage prostate cancer. However, it is suggested that the psychosocial burden of living with prostate cancer plays a substantial role in adherence to active surveillance and outcomes of men with the disease. Effective clinician education and counseling, as well as the referral for supplemental support services must be implemented and documented in future research studies and clinical practice.

Psychological aspects of active surveillance

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Active surveillance is emerging as a serious alternative to radical therapy for low-risk prostate cancer. In a situation in which the difference in effects on disease morbidity and mortality of different treatment options for these malignancies is likely to be small, the quality of life and psychological aspects may be decisive in treatment choice.

RECENT FINDINGS

The following three are the main issues being covered in the literature on psychological aspects of active surveillance. First, the process of consultation with the physician and treatment choice in men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Second, the effect of active surveillance on physical domains and resulting anxiety and distress, and on quality of life in general. And third, the possible supportive and educational interventions for patients on active surveillance. Observations are scarce and derived from nonrandomized studies with a limited follow-up after diagnosis.

SUMMARY

At the moment of treatment choice, fear of disease progression is the main reason to reject active surveillance. Active surveillance may spare physical domains and does not cause much anxiety or distress on short term in men who choose this strategy. Once men opt for active surveillance, only a minority of them switch to radical treatment due to psychological reasons. Supportive and educational interventions should be considered.

Molecular preservation by extraction and fixation, mPREF: a method for small molecule biomarker analysis and histology on exactly the same tissue

Background

Histopathology is the standard method for cancer diagnosis and grading to assess aggressiveness in clinical biopsies. Molecular biomarkers have also been described that are associated with cancer aggressiveness, however, the portion of tissue analyzed is often processed in a manner that is destructive to the tissue. We present here a new method for performing analysis of small molecule biomarkers and histology in exactly the same biopsy tissue.

Methods

Prostate needle biopsies were taken from surgical prostatectomy specimens and first fixed, each in a separate vial, in 2.5 ml of 80% methanol:water. The biopsies were fixed for 24 hrs at room temperature and then removed and post-processed using a non-formalin-based fixative (UMFIX), embedded, and analyzed by hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and by immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. The retained alcohol pre-fixative was analyzed for small molecule biomarkers by mass spectrometry.

Results

H&E analysis was successful following the pre-fixation in 80% methanol. The presence or absence of tumor could be readily determined for all 96 biopsies analyzed. A subset of biopsy sections was analyzed by IHC, and cancerous and non-cancerous regions could be readily visualized by PIN4 staining. To demonstrate the suitability for analysis of small molecule biomarkers, 28 of the alcohol extracts were analyzed using a mass spectrometry-based metabolomics platform. All extracts tested yielded successful metabolite profiles. 260 named biochemical compounds were detected in the alcohol extracts. A comparison of the relative levels of compounds in cancer containing vs. non-cancer containing biopsies showed differences for 83 of the compounds. A comparison of the results with prior published reports showed good agreement between the current method and prior reported biomarker discovery methods that involve tissue destructive methods.

Conclusions

The Molecular Preservation by Extraction and Fixation (mPREF) method allows for the analysis of small molecule biomarkers from exactly the same tissue that is processed for histopathology.

Defining and predicting indolent and low risk prostate cancer

The early detection of asymptomatic prostate cancer has led to the increased incidence of tumours that are unlikely to become symptomatic during life, so called indolent cancers. The prediction of low risk and indolent prostate cancer is needed to avoid overtreatment by unnecessary invasive therapies, and select men for active surveillance. Some of the currently available nomograms predicting these low risk tumours have been validated in independent populations. However, assessment to the compliance with their treatment advises based on the calculation of probability are scarce. The ultimate value of nomograms for the urologic practice can only be assessed by analysing their practical implementation.