|
1
|
Greenberg JW, Koller CR, Lightfoot C, Brinkley GJ, Leinwand G, Wang J, Krane LS. Annual mpMRI surveillance: PI-RADS upgrading and increasing trend correlated with patients who harbor clinically significant disease. Urol Oncol 2024; 42:158.e11-158.e16. [PMID: 38365461 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.01.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2023] [Revised: 12/19/2023] [Accepted: 01/05/2024] [Indexed: 02/18/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Prostate cancer screening has routinely identified men with very low- or low-risk disease, per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Current literature has demonstrated that the most appropriate management strategy for these patients is active surveillance (AS). The mainstay of AS includes periodic biopsies and biannual prostate-specific antigen tests. However, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is uniquely posed to improve patient surveillance. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of an annual mpMRI in patients on AS, focusing on radiologic upgrading and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) trends as indicators of clinically significant disease. METHODS This prospective, single intuition, study enrolled 208 patients on AS who had at least two biopsies and 1 mpMRI with a median follow-up of 5.03 years. The main outcome variable was time to Gleason grade (GG) reclassification. RESULTS After delineating patients on their initial PI-RADS score, men with score 3 and 5 lesions at first MRI had comparable GG reclassification-free survival to their counterparts. Conversely, men with initial PI-RADS 4 lesions showed a lower 5-year GG reclassification-free survival compared to those with PI-RADS score 1-2. The cohort was then subset to 70 patients who obtained ≥2 mpMRIs on protocol. Men experiencing uptrending mpMRI scores had an increased risk of GG reclassification, with a 35.4% difference in 5 year GG reclassification-free survival probability on the Kaplan-Meier curve analysis. CONCLUSION In conclusion, this study demonstrates that for men on AS with stable recapitulated disease, an annual MRI may replace repeat biopsies after confirmatory sampling has been obtained. On the other hand, men who initiate AS with PI-RADS 4 and/or who display uptrending mpMRI scores require periodic biopsies along with repeat imaging. This study highlights the utility of integrating an annual MRI into AS protocols, thus promising a more effective approach to management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob W Greenberg
- Department of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA
| | | | - Christine Lightfoot
- Department of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA
| | - Garrett J Brinkley
- Department of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA
| | - Gabriel Leinwand
- Department of Urology, Southeastern Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, New Orleans, LA
| | - Julie Wang
- Department of Urology, Southeastern Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, New Orleans, LA
| | - L Spencer Krane
- Department of Urology, Southeastern Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, New Orleans, LA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Brassetti A, Cacciatore L, Bove AM, Anceschi U, Proietti F, Misuraca L, Tuderti G, Flammia RS, Mastroianni R, Ferriero MC, Chiacchio G, D’Annunzio S, Pallares-Mendez R, Lombardo R, Leonardo C, De Nunzio C, Simone G. The Impact of Physical Activity on the Outcomes of Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:630. [PMID: 38339381 PMCID: PMC10854832 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16030630] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2024] [Revised: 01/29/2024] [Accepted: 01/30/2024] [Indexed: 02/12/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Active surveillance has emerged as a valid therapeutic option in patients with low-risk prostate cancer, allowing for the deferral of definitive treatment until the time of possible disease progression. Although it is known that physical activity plays a protective role in the onset and progression of this tumor, its impact on patients with low-risk disease who are managed with active surveillance remains unclear. Our scoping review aims to summarize the existing evidence on this subject. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION On 9 April 2023, a systematic search was conducted using the PubMed and Scopus databases. The search employed the combination of the following terms: ("prostate cancer" OR "prostate tumor") AND ("active surveillance") AND ("physical activity" OR "physical exercise" OR "physical intensive activity" OR "intensive exercise") AND ("lifestyle"). Out of the 506 identified articles, 9 were used for the present scoping review, and their results were reported according to the PRISMA-ScR statement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS We discovered a lack of uniformity in the assessment of PA and its stratification by intensity. There was no consensus regarding what constitutes cancer progression in patients choosing expectant management. In terms of the impact of PA on AS outcomes, conflicting results were reported: some authors found no correlation, while others (six of total studies included) revealed that active men experience smaller increases in PSA levels compared to their sedentary counterparts. Additionally, higher levels of exercise were associated with a significantly reduced risk of PCa reclassification. CONCLUSION Due to the heterogeneity of the methodologies used in the available studies and the conflicting results reported, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions concerning the role physical activity may play in the risk of prostate cancer progression in men managed with active surveillance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aldo Brassetti
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Loris Cacciatore
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Alfredo Maria Bove
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Umberto Anceschi
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Flavia Proietti
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Leonardo Misuraca
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Gabriele Tuderti
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Rocco Simone Flammia
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Riccardo Mastroianni
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Maria Consiglia Ferriero
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Giuseppe Chiacchio
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Simone D’Annunzio
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Rigoberto Pallares-Mendez
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Riccardo Lombardo
- “Sapienza” University of Rome, Department of Urology, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (C.D.N.)
| | - Costantino Leonardo
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| | - Cosimo De Nunzio
- “Sapienza” University of Rome, Department of Urology, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (C.D.N.)
| | - Giuseppe Simone
- IRCCS “Regina Elena” National Cancer Institute, Department of Urology, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00144 Rome, Italy; (A.B.); (A.M.B.); (U.A.); (F.P.); (L.M.); (G.T.); (R.S.F.); (R.M.); (M.C.F.); (G.C.); (S.D.); (R.P.-M.); (C.L.); (G.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Guan A, Santiago-Rodríguez EJ, Chung BI, Shim JK, Allen L, Kuo MC, Lau K, Loya Z, Brooks JD, Cheng I, DeRouen MC, Frosch DL, Golden T, Leppert JT, Lichtensztajn DY, Lu Q, Oh D, Sieh W, Wadhwa M, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Gomez SL, Shariff-Marco S. Patient and physician perspectives on treatments for low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative study. BMC Cancer 2023; 23:1191. [PMID: 38053037 PMCID: PMC10696696 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11679-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2023] [Accepted: 11/24/2023] [Indexed: 12/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are confronted with a difficult decision regarding whether to undergo definitive treatment or to pursue an active surveillance protocol. This is potentially further complicated by the possibility that patients and physicians may place different value on factors that influence this decision. We conducted a qualitative investigation to better understand patient and physician perceptions of factors influencing treatment decisions for low-risk PCa. METHODS Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 43 racially and ethnically diverse patients diagnosed with low-risk PCa, who were identified through a population-based cancer registry, and 15 physicians who were selected to represent a variety of practice settings in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. RESULTS Patients and physicians both described several key individual (e.g., clinical) and interpersonal (e.g., healthcare communications) factors as important for treatment decision-making. Overall, physicians' perceptions largely mirrored patients' perceptions. First, we observed differences in treatment preferences by age and stage of life. At older ages, there was a preference for less invasive options. However, at younger ages, we found varying opinions among both patients and physicians. Second, patients and physicians both described concerns about side effects including physical functioning and non-physical considerations. Third, we observed differences in expectations and the level of difficulty for clinical conversations based on information needs and resources between patients and physicians. Finally, we discovered that patients and physicians perceived patients' prior knowledge and the support of family/friends as facilitators of clinical conversations. CONCLUSIONS Our study suggests that the gap between patient and physician perceptions on the influence of clinical and communication factors on treatment decision-making is not large. The consensus we observed points to the importance of developing relevant clinical communication roadmaps as well as high quality and accessible patient education materials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alice Guan
- Dept of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, United States
| | - Eduardo J Santiago-Rodríguez
- Dept of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, United States
| | - Benjamin I Chung
- Department of Urology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, United States
| | - Janet K Shim
- UCSF | Department of Social & Behavioral Sciences, San Francisco, United States
| | - Laura Allen
- Dept of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, United States
| | - Mei-Chin Kuo
- Dept of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, United States
| | - Kathie Lau
- Dept of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, United States
| | - Zinnia Loya
- Dept of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, United States
| | - James D Brooks
- Department of Urology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, United States
| | - Iona Cheng
- Dept of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, United States
| | - Mindy C DeRouen
- Dept of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, United States
| | - Dominick L Frosch
- Health Science Diligence Advisors, LLC, San Francisco, United States
| | - Todd Golden
- Dept of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, United States
| | - John T Leppert
- Department of Urology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, United States
| | - Daphne Y Lichtensztajn
- Dept of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, United States
| | - Qian Lu
- Dept of Health Disparities Research, University of Texas MD-Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
| | - Debora Oh
- Dept of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, United States
| | - Weiva Sieh
- Dept of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
| | - Michelle Wadhwa
- Dept of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, United States
| | - Matthew R Cooperberg
- Dept of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, United States
- UCSF | Department of Urology, San Francisco, United States
| | | | - Scarlett L Gomez
- Dept of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, United States
| | - Salma Shariff-Marco
- Dept of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Han JH, Herlemann A, Washington SL, Lonergan PE, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR, Jeong CW. Observation, Radiotherapy, or Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Survival Analysis in the United States. World J Mens Health 2023; 41:940-950. [PMID: 37118954 PMCID: PMC10523124 DOI: 10.5534/wjmh.220151] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2022] [Revised: 10/13/2022] [Accepted: 01/01/2023] [Indexed: 03/18/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Contemporary treatment strategies for localized prostate cancer (PCa) have been evolved over time. However, there is little data regarding survival outcomes based on initial treatment by risk group in this new era. This study aims to evaluate survival outcomes among men who underwent observation, radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy for localized PCa using a population-based cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) prostate with watchful waiting dataset (2010-2016) was used. We included men diagnosed with localized PCa and clinical stage T1c-2cN0M0. Other inclusion criteria were age 50-79 years, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤50 ng/mL, and initial treatment with observation (active surveillance/watchful waiting), radiotherapy, or radical prostatectomy. PCa risk was assessed using the D'Amico classification. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included PCa-specific survival. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression and competing risk analysis were performed to assess outcomes. RESULTS After IPTW-adjusting, pseudo-population comprised 521,656 men (observation: 170,428, radiotherapy: 175,628, radical prostatectomy: 175,600) at a median 36.5 month follow-up. Observation demonstrated the lowest 5-year overall survival rate (91.6%) after IPTW-adjusting in comparison to radiotherapy (92.4%) and radical prostatectomy (96.1%, p<0.001). Men who underwent radical prostatectomy had the lowest cumulative PCa-specific and all-cause mortality (p<0.001). Compared to observation, radiotherapy (sub-distribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.97; p=0.012) and radical prostatectomy (sHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.41-0.52; p<.001) had a lower risk of PCa-specific mortality in competing risk analysis after adjustment for all other factors and other-cause death. CONCLUSIONS Intermediate-term mortality risk in men with localized PCa were lower with active treatments compared to observation-especially for intermediate- and high-risk disease. However, observation represents a safe management strategy in men within the low-risk group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jang Hee Han
- Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Annika Herlemann
- Department of Urology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Samuel L Washington
- Department of Urology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Peter E Lonergan
- Department of Urology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Department of Urology, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
- Department of Surgery, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Peter R Carroll
- Department of Urology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Matthew R Cooperberg
- Department of Urology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Chang Wook Jeong
- Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Urology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Department of Urology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Radhakrishnan A, Wallner LP, Skolarus TA, George AK, Rosenberg BH, Abrahamse P, Hawley ST. Exploring Variation in the Receipt of Recommended Active Surveillance for Men with Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2022; 208:600-608. [PMID: 35522191 PMCID: PMC9378546 DOI: 10.1097/ju.0000000000002734] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2021] [Accepted: 04/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer do not receive all the recommended testing. Reasons for variation in receipt are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS We combined prospective registry data from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, a collaborative of 46 academic and community urology practices across Michigan, with insurance claims from 2014 to 2018 for men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer. We defined receipt of recommended surveillance according to the collaborative's low-intensity criteria as: annual prostate specific antigen testing and either magnetic resonance imaging or prostate biopsy every 3 years. We assessed receipt of recommended surveillance among men with ≥36 months of followup (246). We conducted multilevel analyses to examine the influence of the urologist, urologist and primary care provider visits, and patient demographic and clinical factors on variation in receipt. RESULTS During 3 years of active surveillance, just over half of men (56.5%) received all recommended surveillance testing (69.9% annual prostate specific antigen testing, 72.8% magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy). We found 19% of the variation in receipt was attributed to individual urologists. While increasing provider visits were not significantly associated with receipt, older men were less likely to receive magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy (≥75 vs <55 years, adjusted odds ratio 0.07; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.81). CONCLUSIONS Nearly half of men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer did not receive all recommended surveillance. While urologists substantially influenced receipt of recommended testing, exploring how to leverage patients and their visits with their primary care providers to positively influence receipt appears warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Lauren P Wallner
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Ted A Skolarus
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Arvin K George
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Bradley H Rosenberg
- Department of Urology, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, MI
| | - Paul Abrahamse
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Sarah T Hawley
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Wu X, Barocas DA, Moses KA, Hoffman RM, Basourakos SP, Lewicki P, Smelser WW, Arenas-Gallo C, Shoag JE. Intensity of observation with active surveillance or watchful waiting in men with prostate cancer in the United States. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2022:10.1038/s41391-022-00580-z. [PMID: 35882950 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-022-00580-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2022] [Revised: 06/27/2022] [Accepted: 07/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Population-based studies assessing various active surveillance (AS) protocols for prostate cancer, to date, have inferred AS participation by the lack of definitive treatment and use of post-diagnostic testing. This is problematic as evidence suggests that most men do not adhere to AS protocols. We sought to develop a novel method of identifying men on AS or watchful waiting (WW) independent of post-diagnostic testing and aimed to identify possible predictors of follow-up intensity in men on AS/WW. METHODS A predictive model was developed using SEER watchful waiting data to identify men ≥66 years on AS between 2010-2015, irrespective of post-diagnostic testing, and applied to SEER-Medicare database. AS intensity among different variables including age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, number of total and positive biopsy cores, Charlson comorbidity index, race (Black vs. non-Black), US census region, and county poverty, income, and education levels were compared using multivariable regression analyses for PSA testing, surveillance biopsy, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). RESULTS A total of 2238 men were identified as being on AS. Of which, 81%, 33%, and 10% had a PSA test, surveillance biopsy, and MRI scan within 1-2 years, respectively. On multivariable analyses, Black men were less likely to have a PSA test (adjusted rate ratio [ARR] 0.60, 95% CI: 0.53-0.69), MRI scan (ARR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.24-0.68), and surveillance biopsy (ARR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55-0.92) than non-Black men. Men within the highest income quintile were more likely to undergo PSA test (ARR 1.16, 95% CI: 1.05-1.27) and MRI scan (ARR 1.60, 95% CI 1.15-2.27) compared to men with the lowest income. CONCLUSIONS Black men and men with lower incomes on AS underwent less rigorous monitoring. Further study is needed to understand and ameliorate differences in AS rigor stemming from sociodemographic differences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Xian Wu
- Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Healthcare Policy & Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Daniel A Barocas
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Kelvin A Moses
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Richard M Hoffman
- Department of Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA
| | - Spyridon P Basourakos
- Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Patrick Lewicki
- Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Woodson W Smelser
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Camilo Arenas-Gallo
- University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Urology Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Jonathan E Shoag
- Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Urology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA.,University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Urology Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Epstein JI, Kibel AS. Renaming Gleason Score 6 Prostate to Noncancer: A Flawed Idea Scientifically and for Patient Care. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:3106-3109. [PMID: 35767801 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.00926] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan I Epstein
- Departments of Pathology, Urology and Oncology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD
| | - Adam S Kibel
- Division of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Borregales LD, DeMeo G, Gu X, Cheng E, Dudley V, Schaeffer EM, Nagar H, Carlsson S, Vickers A, Hu JC. Grade Migration of Prostate Cancer in the United States During the Last Decade. J Natl Cancer Inst 2022; 114:1012-1019. [PMID: 35348709 PMCID: PMC9275764 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djac066] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2022] [Revised: 03/08/2022] [Accepted: 03/23/2022] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate cancer (PC) screening guidelines have changed over the last decade to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-grade disease. We sought to examine and attempt to explain how changes in screening strategies have impacted temporal trends in Gleason grade group (GG) PC at diagnosis and radical prostatectomy pathology. METHODS Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Registry database, we identified 438 432 men with newly diagnosed PC during 2010-2018. Temporal trends in incidence of GG at biopsy, radical prostatectomy pathology, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and metastasis at diagnosis were examined. The National Health Interview Survey database was examined to evaluate trends in PSA-screening rates, and a literature review evaluating magnetic resonance imaging and biomarkers utilization during this period was performed. RESULTS Between 2010 and 2018, the incidence of low-grade PC (GG1) decreased from 52 to 26 cases per 100 000 (P < .001). The incidence of GG1 as a proportion of all PC decreased from 47% to 32%, and the proportion of GG1 at radical prostatectomy pathology decreased from 32% to 10% (P < .001). However, metastases at diagnosis increased from 3.0% to 5.2% (P < .001). During 2010-2013, PSA screening rates in men aged 50-74 years declined from 39 to 32 per 100 men and remained stable. Utilization rates of magnetic resonance imaging and biomarkers modestly increased from 7.2% in 2012 to 17% in 2019 and 1.3% in 2012 to 13% in 2019, respectively. CONCLUSIONS We found a significant decrease in the diagnosis and treatment of GG1 PC between 2010 and 2018. Changes in PSA screening practices appear as the primary contributor. Public health efforts should be directed toward addressing the increase in the diagnoses of metastatic PC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leonardo D Borregales
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine/New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA
| | - Gina DeMeo
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine/New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA
| | - Xiangmei Gu
- Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Emily Cheng
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine/New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA
| | - Vanessa Dudley
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine/New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Himanshu Nagar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine/New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sigrid Carlsson
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA,Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Andrew Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jim C Hu
- Correspondence to: Jim C. Hu, MD, MPH, Ronald P. Lynch Professor of Urologic Oncology, Director, Lefrak Center for Robotic Surgery, 525 E 68th St, Starr 946, New York, NY 10028, USA (e-mail: )
| |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Re: Trends and practices for managing low-risk prostate cancer: A SEER-Medicare study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2022; 25:9-10. [PMID: 34108649 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00407-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2021] [Revised: 05/24/2021] [Accepted: 05/27/2021] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
|
|
10
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW Whether Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer is really cancer remains controversial. RECENT FINDINGS Favoring renaming GG1 with a noncancerous diagnosis are: fear of the term cancer, which will lead to overtreatment of GG1; and indolence of GG1. Favor designating GG1 as cancer are: morphologically, GG1 may be indistinguishable from GG2 to GG5 and GG1 is invasive (lacks basal cells), can show perineural invasion and extraprostatic extension; molecularly, GG1 has many of the hallmarks of prostate cancer; calling GG1 noncancer would lead to inconsistencies and confusion in reporting; sampling error with GG1 on biopsy can miss higher grade cancer; removing the label of cancer in men with GG1 on biopsy may make it challenging to insure follow-up during active surveillance; the prognosis of treated GG1 may not be the same if GG1 called noncancer and not treated; with Grade Group terminology, GG1 is more intuitive to patients as lowest grade cancer; and patients are increasingly adopting active surveillance, recognizing that not all prostate cancers are the same and GG1 can be followed carefully and safely on active surveillance. SUMMARY There is strong support for retaining the carcinoma designation for GG1.
Collapse
|