What is the best approach for screen-detected low volume cancers?--The case for observation

Active surveillance vs. treatment for low-risk prostate cancer: a cost comparison

OBJECTIVE

Radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy are standard curative approaches for low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Active surveillance (AS) is becoming an increasingly accepted management alternative for low-risk PC. Our aim is to compare the cumulative medical costs of treatment vs. AS.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We collected data on the cumulative medical costs of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT), and AS at our institution. For physicians' reimbursements, Medicare values of our region were used to maintain uniformity. For inpatient costs other than reimbursements, we used the mean cost at our institution. The costs of RRP and RARP involve preoperative investigations, medical clearance, physicians' fees, inpatient costs, and pathologic examination of prostatectomy specimen and follow-up. The inpatient costs include the operating room, disposable equipment, anesthesia, post-anesthesia care, transfusion, and hospital stay. The cost of EBRT involves the cost of consultation, planning, simulation and treatment sessions, and follow-up. BT costs involved radiotherapy planning as well as inpatients costs. AS protocol involves regular visits, transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies, prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing. To evaluate the cost of treating complications, treatment after AS, and treatment for recurrence, we created a Markov model based on recent studies and our experience.

RESULTS

The cumulative costs of RRP are $9,732 (1 year), $10,360 (2 years), $12,209 (5 years), and $15,084 (10 years). While for RARP, the costs are $17,824 (1 year), $18,308 (2 years), $20,117 (5 years), and $22,762 (10 years). The costs of EBRT are $20,730 (1 year), $20,969 (2 years), $22,043 (5 years), and $23,953 (10 years). BT costs are $14,061 (1 year), $14,300 (2 years), $15,374 (5 years), and $17,284 (10 years). The costs of AS are $1,154 (1 year), $2,308 (2 years), $8,761 (5 years), and $13,116 (10 years).

CONCLUSIONS

The cumulative medical costs of RARP and EBRT are much higher than BT, RRP, and AS. AS is associated with a different cost distribution in which the initial cost is low and relatively higher cost of follow-up. Despite the higher follow-up cost, AS remains the most cost effective alternative for low-risk PC.

Early prostate cancer--which treatment do men prefer and why?

STUDY TYPE

Preference (prospective cohort).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1b. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? In general the literature suggests that there is a need for improvement in aiding men diagnosed with early prostate cancer in their decision making about treatment options and that our understanding of this process is inadequate. There is limited data analyzing the reasons why these men decide between potentially curative or observational treatments and data evaluating patients' views before and after definitive therapy are scarce. This study begins the process of understanding the reasons underlying a patient's final treatment decision. Being a prospective study, it looks at the thought processes of these men before treatment during the time the decision is made. It also documents how satisfied patients are with their choice after their treatment and whether they would choose the same treatment again.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the reasons for patients with localised prostate cancer choosing between treatments and the relationship of procedure type to patient satisfaction post-treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

768 men with prostate cancer (stage T1/2, Gleason≤7, PSA<20 ug/L) chose between four treatments: radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy, conformal radiotherapy and active surveillance. Prior to choosing, patients were counselled by a urological surgeon, clinical (radiation) oncologist and uro-oncology specialist nurse. Pre-treatment reasons for choice were recorded. Post-treatment satisfaction was examined via postal questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of the 768 patients, 305 (40%) chose surgery, 237 (31%) conformal beam radiotherapy, 165 (21%) brachytherapy and 61 (8%) active surveillance. Sixty percent of men who opted for radical prostatectomy were motivated by the need for physical removal of the cancer. Conformal radiotherapy was mainly chosen by patients who feared other treatments (n=63, 27%). Most men chose brachytherapy because it was more convenient for their lifestyle (n=64, 39%). Active surveillance was chosen by patients for more varied reasons. Post-treatment satisfaction was assessed in a subgroup who took part in the QOL aspect of this study. Of the respondents to the questionnaire, 212(87.6%) stated that they were satisfied/extremely satisfied with their choice and 171(92.9%) indicated they would choose the same treatment again.

CONCLUSION

Men with early prostate cancer have clear reasons for making decisions about treatment. Overall, patients were satisfied with the treatment and indicated that despite different reasons for choosing treatment, they would make the same choice again.

Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging

PURPOSE

To determine the role that magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging findings obtained at the time of diagnosis play in the progression of disease in patients whose prostate cancer is being managed with active surveillance and to compare the role of these findings with the role of transrectal ultrasonography (US) findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, and informed consent was obtained from all patients whose records were to be entered into the research database. All patients who had prostate cancer managed with active surveillance and who had undergone both MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging of the prostate and transrectal US at time of diagnosis were identified. Two urologists blinded to the clinical outcome in these patients independently reviewed and dichotomized the MR imaging report and the MR spectroscopic imaging report as normal or suggestive of malignancy. One experienced urologist performed all US examinations that were then dichotomized similarly. Uni- and multivariate (with use of standard clinical variables) Cox models were fitted to assess time to cancer progression, defined as Gleason score upgrading, prostate-specific antigen velocity of more than 0.75 (microg x L(-1))/y, or initiation of treatment more than 6 months after diagnosis.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 114 patients with a median follow-up of 59 months. Patients with a lesion that was suggestive of cancer at MR imaging had a greater risk of the Gleason score being upgraded at subsequent biopsy (hazard ratio, 4.0; 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 14.9) than did patients without such a lesion. Neither MR spectroscopic imaging nor transrectal US could be used to predict cancer progression.

CONCLUSION

Abnormal prostate MR imaging results suggestive of cancer may confer an increased risk of Gleason score upgrade at subsequent biopsy. Although expensive, prostate MR imaging may help in counseling potential candidates about active surveillance.

It's time to depolarise the unhelpful PSA-testing debate and put into practice lessons from the two major international screening trials

Two recently reported large-scale trials conducted in the United States and western Europe have provided evidence that coordinated screening programs will not reduce mortality in countries or regions where prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is already highly prevalent, but will reduce mortality in places where PSA testing prevalence is low. The trials also produce evidence that coordinated screening will cause over-diagnosis and over-treatment. The instigation of a national screening program should be delayed until a more specific marker for aggressive disease than PSA level becomes available. In the meantime, results of the two trials can be used to inform the development of regional testing policies in Australia. These policies should encourage regular PSA testing in regions with low testing prevalence, but must also embrace methods of dealing with over-diagnosis and over-treatment. "Active surveillance" programs (whereby men with early-stage cancers are monitored regularly by PSA testing and digital rectal examinations) and development of counselling services should be encouraged.