Risk-Based Selection for Active Surveillance: Results of the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) Initiative

Low risk is low risk, regardless of race or ethnicity: Outcomes of prostate cancer active surveillance and factors associated with reclassification in a racially diverse cohort

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) is the standard for very low- and low-risk prostate cancer. Although risk factors for pathologic reclassification while on AS have been identified, results are mixed for non-Hispanic Black (NHB) and Hispanic ethnicity. We aim to further explore how race and ethnicity may be affecting AS participation and outcomes in a primarily urban, diverse, and vulnerable population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients eligible for AS from 2005-2020 were reviewed. Demographics, race/ethnicity, prostate specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, and pathologic characteristics were analyzed between patients enrolled in AS and those that underwent immediate therapy. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates. Cox proportional hazards models were used to develop prediction models for clinical reclassification.

RESULTS

A total of 471 men were eligible for AS. Of those, 188 (39.9%) enrolled in AS while 283 (60.1%) underwent immediate radical therapy. No significant differences were found in racial/ethnic composition between the AS and immediate treatment groups. In our AS cohort, 79 (42.0%) experienced clinical reclassification and underwent deferred treatment. BCR rates were similar between treatment groups. Race/ethnicity were not found to be predictors of clinical reclassification, while metrics at diagnostic biopsy such as elevated PSA, higher PSA density, and lower prostate volume increased reclassification odds.

CONCLUSIONS

In our diverse population, NHB race and Hispanic ethnicity were not significant predictors of adverse reclassification while on AS. Our findings support utilizing other metrics taken at initial biopsy to identify high-risk patients such as PSA, prostate volume, and PSA density.

Best Current Practice and Research Priorities in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-A Report of a Movember International Consensus Meeting

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low-risk and some intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Uptake and practice of AS vary significantly across different settings, as does the experience of surveillance-from which tests are offered, and to the levels of psychological support.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the current best practice and determine the most important research priorities in AS for prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A formal consensus process was followed, with an international expert panel of purposively sampled participants across a range of health care professionals and researchers, and those with lived experience of prostate cancer. Statements regarding the practice of AS and potential research priorities spanning the patient journey from surveillance to initiating treatment were developed.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Panel members scored each statement on a Likert scale. The group median score and measure of consensus were presented to participants prior to discussion and rescoring at panel meetings. Current best practice and future research priorities were identified, agreed upon, and finally ranked by panel members.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

There was consensus agreement that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which allows digital rectal examination (DRE) to be omitted, that repeat standard biopsy can be omitted when MRI and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics are stable, and that changes in PSA or DRE should prompt MRI ± biopsy rather than immediate active treatment. The highest ranked research priority was a dynamic, risk-adjusted AS approach, reducing testing for those at the least risk of progression. Improving the tests used in surveillance, ensuring equity of access and experience across different patients and settings, and improving information and communication between and within clinicians and patients were also high priorities. Limitations include the use of a limited number of panel members for practical reasons.

CONCLUSIONS

The current best practice in AS includes the use of high-quality MRI to avoid DRE and as the first assessment for changes in PSA, with omission of repeat standard biopsy when PSA and MRI are stable. Development of a robust, dynamic, risk-adapted approach to surveillance is the highest research priority in AS for prostate cancer.

PATIENT SUMMARY

A diverse group of experts in active surveillance, including a broad range of health care professionals and researchers and those with lived experience of prostate cancer, agreed that best practice includes the use of high-quality magnetic resonance imaging, which can allow digital rectal examination and some biopsies to be omitted. The highest research priority in active surveillance research was identified as the development of a dynamic, risk-adjusted approach.

No significant difference in intermediate key outcomes in men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed by active surveillance

Active surveillance (AS) is standard of care for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), but its feasibility in intermediate-risk patients is controversial. We compared outcomes of low- and intermediate-risk patients managed with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-supported AS in a community hospital. Of the 433 patients enrolled in AS between 2009 and 2016, 358 complied with AS inclusion criteria (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score ≤ 5, Gleason grade group (GGG) ≤ 2, clinical stage ≤ cT2 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 20 ng/ml) and discontinuation criteria (histological-, PSA-, clinical- or radiological disease reclassification). Of the 358 patients, 177 (49%) were low-risk and 181 (51%) were intermediate-risk. Median follow-up was 4.2 years. The estimated 5-year treatment-free survival (TFS) was 56% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51-62%). Intermediate-risk patients had significantly shorter TFS compared with low-risk patients (hazard ratio 2.01, 95% CI 1.47-2.76, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the rate of adverse pathology, biochemical recurrence-free survival and overall survival between low- and intermediate-risk patients. Two patients developed metastatic disease and three died of PCa. These results suggest that selected patients with intermediate-risk PCa may be safely managed by mpMRI-supported AS, but longer follow-up is necessary.

Two Decades of Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in a Single-Center Cohort: Favorable Outcomes after Transurethral Resection of the Prostate

OBJECTIVE

To report the outcomes of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) in a single-center cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a prospective, single-center, observational study. The cohort included all patients who underwent AS for PCa between December 1999 and December 2020 at our institution. Follow-up appointments (FU) ended in February 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 413 men were enrolled in the study, and 391 had at least one FU. Of those who followed up, 267 had PCa diagnosed by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy (T1c: 68.3%), while 124 were diagnosed after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (T1a/b: 31.7%). Median FU was 46 months (IQR 25-90). Cancer specific survival was 99.7% and overall survival was 92.3%. Median reclassification time was 11.2 years. After 20 years, 25% of patients were reclassified within 4.58 years, 6.6% opted to switch to watchful waiting, 4.1% died, 17.4% were lost to FU, and 46.8% remained on AS. Those diagnosed by TRUS had a significantly higher reclassification rate than those diagnosed by TURP (p < 0.0001). Men diagnosed by targeted MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy tended to have a higher reclassification probability than those diagnosed by conventional template biopsies (p = 0.083).

CONCLUSIONS

Our single-center cohort spanning over two decades revealed that AS remains a safe option for low-risk PCa even in the long term. Approximately half of AS enrollees will eventually require definitive treatment due to disease progression. Men with incidental prostate cancer were significantly less likely to have disease progression.

A Personalized Genomics Approach of the Prostate Cancer

Decades of research identified genomic similarities among prostate cancer patients and proposed general solutions for diagnostic and treatments. However, each human is a dynamic unique with never repeatable transcriptomic topology and no gene therapy is good for everybody. Therefore, we propose the Genomic Fabric Paradigm (GFP) as a personalized alternative to the biomarkers approach. Here, GFP is applied to three (one primary—“A”, and two secondary—“B” & “C”) cancer nodules and the surrounding normal tissue (“N”) from a surgically removed prostate tumor. GFP proved for the first time that, in addition to the expression levels, cancer alters also the cellular control of the gene expression fluctuations and remodels their networking. Substantial differences among the profiled regions were found in the pathways of P53-signaling, apoptosis, prostate cancer, block of differentiation, evading apoptosis, immortality, insensitivity to anti-growth signals, proliferation, resistance to chemotherapy, and sustained angiogenesis. ENTPD2, AP5M1 BAIAP2L1, and TOR1A were identified as the master regulators of the “A”, “B”, “C”, and “N” regions, and potential consequences of ENTPD2 manipulation were analyzed. The study shows that GFP can fully characterize the transcriptomic complexity of a heterogeneous prostate tumor and identify the most influential genes in each cancer nodule.