Surgical management after active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: pathological outcomes compared with men undergoing immediate treatment

Imaging in Diagnosis and Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Review

Importance

Active surveillance (AS) has become an increasingly important option for managing low-risk and select intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Although imaging, particularly multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), has emerged in the prebiopsy pathway for the diagnosis of prostate cancer, the role of mpMRI in patient selection for AS and the necessity of prostate biopsies during AS remain poorly defined. Despite well-founded biopsy schedules, there has been substantial investigation into whether imaging may supplant the need for prostate biopsies during AS. This review aimed to summarize the contemporary role of imaging in the diagnosis and surveillance of prostate cancer.

Observations

Multiparametric MRI is the most established form of imaging in prostate cancer, with routine prebiopsy use being shown to help urologists distinguish between clinically significant and clinically insignificant disease. The visibility of these lesions on mpMRI closely correlates with their behavior, with visible disease portending a worse prognosis. Combined with other clinical data, risk calculators may better delineate patients with higher-risk disease and exclude them from undergoing AS. While current evidence suggests that mpMRI cannot replace the need for prostate biopsy during AS due to the possibility of missing higher-risk disease, the addition of prostate biomarkers may help to reduce the frequency of these biopsies. The role of prostate-specific antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography is still emerging but has shown promising early results as an adjunct to mpMRI in initial diagnosis.

Conclusions and Relevance

Imaging in prostate cancer helps to better select patients appropriate for AS, and future studies may strengthen the predictive capabilities of risk calculators. Multiparametric MRI has been shown to be imperative to rationalizing biopsies for patients enrolled in AS. However, heterogeneity in the evidence of mpMRI during AS has suggested that further prospective studies and randomized clinical trials, particularly in homogenizing reporting standards, may reveal a more defined role in monitoring disease progression.

Short-term prognosis of low-risk prostate cancer patients is favorable despite the presence of pathological prognostic factors: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer patients with pathological prognostic factors have a poor prognosis, but it is unclear whether pathological prognostic factors are associated with prognosis limited to low-risk patients with good prognosis according to NCCN guidelines. The present study examined whether prognosis is influenced by pathological prognostic factors using radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens from low-risk patients.

METHODS

We evaluated diagnostic accuracy by examining biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival with respect to clinical and pathological prognostic factors in 419 all-risk patients who underwent RP. Clinical prognostic factors included age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, PSA density, and risk stratification, while pathological prognostic factors included grade group, lymphovascular space invasion, extraprostatic extension, surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion, intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDCP), and pT. In a subsequent analysis restricted to 104 low-risk patients, survival curves were estimated for pathological prognostic factors using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank and generalized Wilcoxon tests.

RESULTS

In the overall risk analysis, the presence of pathological prognostic factors significantly shortened BCR-free survival (p < 0.05). Univariable analysis revealed that PSA density, risk categories, and pathological prognostic factors were significantly associated with BCR-free survival, although age and PSA were not. In multivariable analysis, age, risk categories, grade group, IDCP, and pT significantly predicted BCR-free survival (p < 0.05). Conversely, no statistically significant differences were found for any pathological prognostic factors in low-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk patients, pathological prognostic factors did not affect BCR-free survival, which suggests that additional treatment may be unnecessary even if pathological prognostic factors are observed in low-risk patients with RP.

Economic value of knowing BRCA status: BRCA testing for prostate cancer prevention and optimal treatment

BACKGROUND

We aimed to estimate the incremental lifetime effects, costs, and net-monetary-benefit (NMB) of knowing BRCA information by testing of patients with low-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) in the US and guiding subsequent screening and treatment, and the cumulative savings or losses of yearly cohort testing over 16 years. We compared two strategies: (1)'with BRCA information' and (2)'without BRCA information.' We also estimated the expected value of perfect information.

METHODS

The incremental NMB (INMB) quantified the monetized benefit per person of knowing BRCA status. The net-monetized-value of knowing BRCA information was estimated by multiplying the INMB with the eligible population.

RESULTS

The INMBs of knowing BRCA information were $43,357 (payer) and $43,487 (society). in payer and societal perspectives, respectively. Escalated to the eligible patients in 2020, knowing BRCA status resulted in net monetized lifetime value of $1.7 billion (payer and society) for the 2020 cohort; and yielded accumulated net-monetized-value of $28.0 billion (payer) and $28.1 billion (society) over 16 yearly cohorts of eligible PCa patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The economic value of knowing BRCA status for all low-risk localized PCa patients in the US provides short-term and long-term evidence for BRCA testing to screen early and optimize treatment.

Waiting Times for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in a Nigerian Population

Background

Prostate biopsy remains an important surgical procedure in the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer, but access to prostate biopsy service is poorly studied in the Nigerian population. While there has been a well-documented delay in patient presentation with prostate cancer in Nigeria, little is however known about how long patients wait to have a histological diagnosis of prostate cancer and start treatment after presenting at Nigerian hospitals.

Method

This was a descriptive retrospective study to document the specific duration of the various timelines in getting a diagnosis of prostate cancer at the Lagos State University Teaching Hospital, Ikeja, Nigeria.

Results

There were 270 patients. The mean age was 69.50 ± 8.03 years (range 45-90). The mean PSA at presentation was 563.2 ± 1879.2 ng/ml (range 2.05-15400), and the median PSA was 49.3 ng/ml. The median waiting times were (i) 10 days from referral to presentation; (ii) 30 days from presentation to biopsy; (iii) 24 days from biopsy to review of histology; (iv) 1 day from histology review to discussion/planning of treatment. The median overall waiting time from referral to treatment was 103 days. The mean time from presentation to biopsy was significantly shorter for patients with PSA of ≥50 ng/ml compared to those with PSA < 50 ng/ml. p = 0.048. Overall, the median time from biopsy to histology was significantly shorter for patients whose specimens were processed in private laboratories (17 days) compared to those whose specimens were processed at the teaching hospital laboratory (30 days), p ≤ 0.001.

Conclusion

There is a significant delay within the health care system in getting a prostate cancer diagnosis in the Nigerian population studied. The major points of the identified delay were the waiting time from patient presentation to having a biopsy done and the histology report waiting time.

Effects of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy and Active Surveillance on Localised Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

We reviewed the evidence available for postponing or delaying cancer surgery for localised prostate cancer. Watchful waiting is an acceptable option in low-risk patients. Evidence is uncertain in postponing surgery, but conservative estimates suggest delays of over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively, can lead to worse survival outcomes. Neoadjuvant therapy can shrink the tumours prior to surgery and can be a useful adjunct in delaying surgery for, at the most, 3 months.

Abstract

External factors, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to cancellations and backlogs of cancer surgeries. The effects of these delays are unclear. This study summarised the evidence surrounding expectant management, delay radical prostatectomy (RP), and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) compared to immediate RP. MEDLINE and EMBASE was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies pertaining to the review question. Risks of biases (RoB) were evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. A total of 57 studies were included. Meta-analysis of four RCTs found overall survival and cancer-specific survival were significantly worsened amongst intermediate-risk patients undergoing active monitoring, observation, or watchful waiting but not in low- and high-risk patients. Evidence from 33 observational studies comparing delayed RP and immediate RP is contradictory. However, conservative estimates of delays over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively, have been associated with significantly worse pathological and oncological outcomes in individual studies. In 11 RCTs, a 3-month course of NHT has been shown to improve pathological outcomes in most patients, but its effect on oncological outcomes is apparently limited.

Prospective Observational Study of a Racially Diverse Group of Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk upgrading of active surveillance (AS), we reviewed the outcomes of African American men (AA) after electing AS. AS is the standard of care for men with low-grade prostate cancer (PCa). AA are known to have more advanced PCa features and are more likely to die from PCa, thus subsequent disease progression for AA on AS is unclear.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained AS database from the Southeast Louisiana Veterans Administration Medical Center, New Orleans, Lousiana was queried. We identified men with low- and very low-risk PCa (Gleason 3 + 3, PSA <10, ≤CT2a) who had undergone at least 2 prostate biopsies, including initial diagnostic and subsequent confirmatory prostate biopsies. Descriptive and comparative statistical analysis was performed using R version 3.5.1.

RESULTS

From a total of 274 men on AS (70% AA), 158 men met inclusion criteria (104 AA [66%]). All patients underwent at least 2 biopsies, and 29% underwent 3 or more biopsies. The median follow-up was 2.7 years. At 3 years on AS protocol, 57% AA and 61% Caucasians demonstrated no evidence of upgrading or treatment. No significant difference was observed between upgrading or progression to treatment when comparing racial groups. Seven (4%) patients in this cohort died from non PCa-specific causes, but no patients demonstrated metastasis or death from PCa over the course of study.

CONCLUSION

AA men with low-risk PCa can be safely followed with the same AS protocol as non-AA men. Further analysis with longer follow up is ongoing.

Impact of time from diagnosis to treatment on erectile function outcomes after radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Concerns exist about the effect of delaying treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) regarding both oncological and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of time from diagnosis to RP on post-operative erectile function (EF) outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed data for 827 patients treated with RP at a single center from 2002 to 2017. The International Index of Erectile Function-EF (IIEF-EF) was compiled by every patient (EF recovery equal to IIEF-EF ≥ 22). Time from diagnosis to treatment was defined as the interval between biopsy and RP. Cox regression analysis was used to test the impact of time to surgery on the probability of EF recovery. Kaplan-Meier analysis compared the cumulative incidence of EF recovery according to time from diagnosis to surgery. The impact of time to RP on EF was tested also in a sub-cohort of patients eligible for active surveillance (AS).

RESULTS

Overall, low-, intermediate-, and high-risk PCa was found in 306 (37%), 422 (51%), and 99 (12%) patients. Of them, 148 (17.9%) would have been eligible for AS. A total of 152 (18%) and 22 (2.7%) patients were treated after 6 and 12 months from diagnosis. The overall probability of EF recovery was 32% (95% CI: 29-36) at 24 months. Cox regression analysis showed that time from biopsy to surgery was not associated with a different chance of EF recovery (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.97-1.05; p = 0.7). At Kaplan-Meier analysis, the cumulative incidence of EF recovery did not differ between patients treated within 6 months, from 6 to 12 months and after 12 months from diagnosis. Similar findings were obtained for patients eligible for AS.

DISCUSSION

Patients may be reassured regarding their chance of post-operative EF recovery in the case of a delayed surgical treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Delaying surgery after PCa diagnosis does not affect post-operative EF recovery outcomes regardless of oncological risk.

Immediate versus delayed prostatectomy and the fate of patients who progress to a higher risk disease on active surveillance

INTRODUCTION

Oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients progressing on active surveillance (AS) are debated. We compared outcomes of AS eligible patients undergoing RP immediately after diagnosis with those doing so after delay or disease progression on AS.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2014, 961 patients were AS eligible as per EAU criteria. RP within 6 months of diagnosis (IRP) or beyond (DRP), RP without AS (DRPa) and AS patients progressing to RP (DRPb) were compared. Baseline PSA, clinical and biopsy characteristics were noted. Oncological outcomes included adverse pathology in RP specimen and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Matched pair analysis was done between DRPb and GS7 patients undergoing immediate RP (GS7IRP).

RESULTS

IRP, DRP, DRPa and DRPb had 820 (85%), 141 (15%), 118 (12.24%) and 23 (2.7%) patients respectively. IRP, DRPa and DRPb underwent RP at a median of 3, 9 and 19 months after diagnosis respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable. DRP vs. IRP had earlier median time (31 vs. 43 months; p<.001) and higher rate of progression to BCR (7.6 vs. 3.9%;p=.045). DRPb showed higher BCR (19 vs. 5%;p=.021) with earlier median time to BCR, compared to IRP and DRPa (p=.038). There was no difference in adverse pathology and BCR rates, but time to BCR was significantly lesser in DRPb (49 vs. 6 months;p<.001), compared to GS7IRP.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients progressing on AS had worst oncological outcomes. RP for GS7 progression and matched pair of GS7 patients had similar outcomes. Worse oncological outcomes in AS progressors cannot be explained by a mere delay in RP.

Effects of pathological upstaging or upgrading on metastasis and cancer-specific mortality in men with clinical low-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To determine if the presence of adverse pathological features in patients eligible for active surveillance (AS) are prognostic of poor oncological outcomes, independent of pretreatment risk.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at two institutions (Cleveland Clinic Foundation and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center) between 1987 and 2008, and who had subsequent follow-up. Rates of biochemical recurrence, metastasis and death from prostate cancer were compared amongst patients with adverse pathological features (Gleason score ≥7, ≥pT3, or lymph node invasion) based on D'Amico clinical risk (low vs intermediate/high). We also compared survival outcomes between patients with and without pathological upgrading/upstaging amongst D'Amico low-risk patients. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess the association between clinical risk, pathological reclassification, and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 16 341 patients who underwent RP, of whom 6 371 were clinically low-risk. Adverse outcomes in men with adverse pathological features were significantly lower in those with low clinical risk, with an ~50% and ~70% reduction in the risk of metastasis and death, respectively. Only pathological upgrading/upstaging to Gleason score ≥8, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node invasion from clinical low-risk disease, were associated with adverse outcomes. However, these types of reclassification were rare.

CONCLUSION

Clinical low-risk patients with pathological upgrading/upstaging have substantially lower rates of important oncological outcomes compared to those with higher pretreatment risk and not substantially different than low-risk patients without pathological upgrading/upstaging. These results call into question the use of this endpoint to counsel patients about the merits and risks of AS.

Curative Radiation Therapy at Time of Progression Under Active Surveillance Compared With Up-front Radical Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

To describe and compare outcomes in men with initially presumed indolent prostate cancer receiving definitive radiation therapy after active surveillance (AS) versus those in a risk-matched cohort undergoing up-front radiation therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Men prospectively enrolled in an AS program between 1992 and 2014 and subsequently undergoing curative radiation therapy (ie, image guided radiation therapy [IGRT] or low-dose-rate brachytherapy [LDR-BT]) were identified. Biochemical relapse-free rate (bRFR), metastasis-free rate (mFR), and overall survival (OS) were compared against a cohort of men treated up front, matched by age, clinical prognostic indices (risk group, prostate-specific antigen, cT category, Gleason score, percentage of involved biopsy cores), and radiation therapy modality.

RESULTS

Of 1070 patients in the AS registry, 200 underwent definitive radiation therapy (143 IGRT and 57 LDR-BT) after a median of 32.9 (interquartile range [IQR] 20.6-59.8) months on surveillance. Main reasons for treatment were grade and volume upgrading (57.5% and 26%, respectively). Median follow-up after radiation therapy was 4.9 (IQR 3.1-7.5) years. At 5 years the bRFR, mFR, and OS were, respectively, 97%, 99%, and 98.5%. No patient died of prostate cancer. Adequate risk-matching was confirmed in an independent cohort comprising 359 patients receiving up-front IGRT (71%) or LDR-BT (29%) and followed for a median of 9 (IQR 3.1-7.5) years. There was no difference in the disease-specific outcomes (bRFR, mFR) between the 2 cohorts (Gray's P value of .257 and .934, respectively). In multivariate analyses, timing of radical radiation therapy (deferred vs up-front) was not correlated to biochemical relapse or metastases occurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Curative-intent radiation therapy (ie, dose-escalated IGRT or LDR-BT) after a period of AS renders excellent oncologic outcomes at 5 years. Deferring radical therapy after a period of AS does not seem to result in inferior oncologic outcomes compared with patients with similar risk characteristics undergoing up-front treatment.

No clinical significance of the time interval between biopsy and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer on biochemical recurrence: a propensity score matching analysis

Purpose

To investigate the impact of the time interval (TI) between prostate biopsy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 793 consecutive patients who were treated with RARP at our institution. Patients were divided into three groups, according to TI, to compare BCR-free survival (BCRFS) rates: Group 1 (n = 196), TI < 3 months; Group 2 (n = 513), 3 ≤ TI < 6 months; Group 3 (n = 84), TI ≥ 6 months. Eighty-three patients with TI ≥ 6 months were matched with an equal number of patients with TI < 6 months based on propensity scores by using four preoperative factors: prostate-specific antigen (PSA), primary (pGS) and secondary (sGS) Gleason score and positive prostate biopsy.

Results

The 5-year BCRFS rates for TI Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 76%, 80.7% and 82.6% (P = 0.99), respectively. The multivariate analysis revealed that PSA, pGS, sGS and a positive prostate biopsy were independent preoperative risk factors for BCR. The propensity adjusted 5-year BCRFS for patients with TI ≥ 6 months was 84.0%. This was not worse than that of patients with TI < 6 months (71.0%, P = 0.18).

Conclusions

In our cohorts, a delay in the time from biopsy to RARP did not significantly affect recurrence. Therefore, hasty treatment decisions are unnecessary for at least 6 months after diagnosis of early prostate cancer.

Does surgical delay for radical prostatectomy affect biochemical recurrence? A retrospective analysis from a Canadian cohort

AIM

We sought to explore the impact of surgical wait time (SWT) to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on biochemical recurrence (BCR).

METHOD

Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database between 2006 and 2015 was conducted on all RARP cases. SWT was defined as period from prostate biopsy to surgery. Primary outcome was the impact on BCR, which was defined as two consecutive PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/dl, or salvage external beam radiation therapy and/or salvage androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were stratified according to D'Amico risk categories. Univariable analysis (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA) with a Cox proportional hazards regression model were used to evaluate the effect of SWT and other predictive factors on BCR, in each D'Amico risk group and on the overall collective sample.

RESULTS

Patients eligible for analysis were 619. Mean SWT was 153, 169, 150, and 125 days, for overall, low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively. Multivariate analysis on the overall cohort did not show a significant relation between SWT and BCR. On subgroup analysis of D'Amico risk group, SWT was positively correlated to BCR for high-risk group (p = 0.001). On threshold analysis, cut-off was found to be 90 days. SWT did not significantly affect BCR on UVA and MVA in the low- and intermediate-risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Increased delay to surgery could affect the BCR, as there was a positive association in high-risk group. Further studies with longer follow-up are necessary to assess the impact of wait time on BCR, cancer specific survival and overall survival.

Low serum total testosterone level as a predictor of upstaging and upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer patients meeting the inclusion criteria for active surveillance

Active surveillance (AS) is currently a widely accepted treatment option for men with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). Several reports have highlighted the association of low serum testosterone levels with high-grade, high-stage PCa. However, the impact of serum testosterone as a predictor of progression in men with low-risk PCa has been little assessed.

In this study, we evaluated the association of circulating testosterone concentrations with a staging/grading reclassification in a cohort of low-risk PCa patients meeting the inclusion criteria for the AS protocol but opting for radical prostatectomy.

Radical prostatectomy (RP) was performed in 338 patients, eligible for AS according to the following criteria: clinical stage T2a or less, PSA<10ng/ml, two or fewer cancer cores, Gleason score (GS)=6 and PSA density<0.2 ng/mL/cc. Reclassification was defined as upstaging (stage>pT2) and upgrading (GS=7; primary Gleason pattern 4) disease. Unfavorable disease was defined as the occurrence of pathological stage>pT2 and predominant Gleason score 4. Total testosterone was measured before surgery.

Low serum testosterone levels (<300 ng/dL) were significantly associated with upgrading, upstaging, unfavorable disease and positive surgical margins. The addition of testosterone to a base model, including age, PSA, PSA density, clinical stage and positive cancer involvement in cores, showed a significant independent influence of this variable on upstaging, upgrading and unfavorable disease.

In conclusion, our results support the idea that total testosterone should be a selection criterion for inclusion of low-risk PCa patients in AS programs and suggest that testosterone level less than 300 ng/dL should be considered a discouraging factor when a close AS program is considered as treatment option

Does surgical delay for radical prostatectomy affect patient pathological outcome? A retrospective analysis from a Canadian cohort

INTRODUCTION

We sought to assess the impact of surgical wait time (SWT) to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on final pathological outcome.

METHODS

A retrospective review of RARP patient records operated between 2006 and 2015 was conducted. SWT was defined as period from prostate biopsy to surgery. Primary outcome was the impact on postoperative Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA-S) score. Patients were stratified according to D'Amico risk categories. Univariate analysis (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) analysis with a generalized linear model was used to evaluate the effect of SWT and other predictive factors on pathological outcome in individual risk group and on the overall sample.

RESULTS

A total of 835 patients were eligible for analysis. Mean SWT was significantly different between the three D'Amico groups, with mean SWT of 180.22 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 169.03; 191.41), 159.14 days (95% CI 152.38; 165.90), and 138.96 days (95% CI 124.60; 153.33) for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively (p<0.001). After stratification by D'Amico risk group, no significant association was observed between SWT and CAPRA-S score in the three risk categories on UVA and MVA. Predictors of higher CAPRA-S score in the multivariable model in the overall cohort were: older age (p=0.014), biopsy Gleason score (p<0.001), percentage of positive cores (p<0.001), and clinical stage (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study evaluating SWT for RARP in a Canadian socialized system, increased delay for surgery does not appear to impact the pathological outcome. Further studies are required to evaluate the impact of wait time on biochemical recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival.

Evaluating the effect of time from prostate cancer diagnosis to radical prostatectomy on cancer control: Can surgery be postponed safely?

OBJECTIVE

To test the prognostic role of treatment delay in patients affected by prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 2,653 patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) at a single institution between 2006 and 2011. The evaluated outcomes were biochemical recurrence (BCR) and clinical recurrence (CR). Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to test the association between time from diagnosis to RP and oncological outcomes. Nonparametric curve fitting methods were used to graphically explore the relationship between time from diagnosis to RP and oncological outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were repeated in the subgroups of low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients.

RESULTS

At median follow-up of 56 months (interquartile range: 26, 92), 283 patients experienced BCR, and 84 patients developed CR. Median time from PCa diagnosis to surgery was 2.8 months (interquartile range: 1.6, 4.7). At multivariable Cox regression analysis, time from biopsy to RP was significantly associated with an increased risk of BCR (hazard ratio = 1.02, P = 0.0005) and CR (hazard ratio = 1.03, P = 0.0002). Using Nonparametric curve fitting methods, a significant increased risk of BCR and CR after approximately 18 months was observed. However, when sensitivity analyses were repeated according to risk groups, this effect was maintained in high-risk patients only, and such time interval was reduced to 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the overall trend on higher rate of cancer relapse after RP, the effect of treatment delay from biopsy to RP was significantly evident in high-risk patients only. Even in high-risk patients surgical treatment can be postponed safely, but not beyond the 12-month landmark.

Limiting overdiagnosis of low-risk prostate cancer through an evaluation of the predictive value of transrectal and power Doppler ultrasonography

PURPOSE

Overdiagnosis induced by prostate cancer screening makes necessary a better selection of candidate patients for prostate biopsy. The objective of our study is to assess the probability of having a high- or low-risk lesion that could require active surveillance (AS) after biopsies and a normal or abnormal examination, including transrectal and power Doppler ultrasonography (TRUS-PDS).

METHODS

Four hundred and twenty-nine consecutive patients with a PSA level <10 ng/ml and a normal digital rectal examination (DRE) had guided biopsies in a prospective study. We used D'Amico's criteria to assess the risk of a biological recurrence and Dall'Era's criteria to assess possible AS. The TRUS-PDS was considered positive if one biopsy was positive in the same sextant as the suspect image.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-seven out of 429 (41 %) T1c cancers were diagnosed; 131 out of 177 (74 %) could be qualified as low risk, and 119 out of 177 (67 %) could require AS. The TRUS-PDS was normal in 285 of 429 patients (66 %). With a normal TRUS-PDS, the probability of not having cancer with a high or intermediate risk was 96 % (negative predictive value). With an abnormal TRUS-PDS, the probability of having a positive biopsy was 59 %, and the probability of having a significant cancer was 30 %, according to the Dall'Era criteria. When TRUS-PDS was normal, these probabilities significantly decreased to 32 and 5 %, respectively (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a PSA level <10 ng/ml, a normal DRE, and a normal TRUS-PDS have a less than 5 % risk of high- or intermediate-risk cancer.

Effects of Time to Treatment on Biochemical and Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Prostate Cancer Treated With Definitive Radiation

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate if time to treatment (TTT) has an effect on outcomes for patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included 4064 patients (1549 low-risk, 1612 intermediate-risk, and 903 high-risk) treated with EBRT. For each National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group, TTT (defined as the time between initial positive prostate biopsy and start of RT) was analyzed in 4 intervals: < 3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-24 months. We recorded the use of androgen deprivation therapy among patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease.

RESULTS

The median TTT was 3.3 months (range, 0.6-23.5 months), and it was similar for each risk group (range, 3.3-3.4 months). The median follow up was 64 months. There were no significant differences in biochemical failure, distant metastasis, or overall survival for patients with TTT < 3, 3-6, 6-9, or 9-24 months for each risk group. There were also no significant differences in the outcomes at 5 years when patients with TTT > 3.3 months were compared with those with TTT ≤ 3.3 months for each risk group. For high-risk men, 328 of 450 (72.9%) with TTT > 3.3 months were on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus 299 of 453 (66%) with TTT ≤ 3.3 months. Among men with high-risk cancer treated without ADT, there remained no significant difference in outcomes between TTT > 3.3 months and TTT ≤ 3.3 months.

CONCLUSION

TTT was not associated with significant differences in outcomes among each risk group of men with localized prostate cancer treated with EBRT. Among the high-risk patients, there were no observed detriments in outcomes with TTT > 3.3 months regardless of androgen deprivation therapy use.

[Active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer]

In Europe prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers among men. The diagnostics always include a control of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and examination of a representative tissue sample from the prostate. With these findings it is possible to evaluate the degree of progression of the cancer and its prognosis. Several treatment options for localized prostate cancer are given by national and international guidelines including radical prostatectomy, percutaneous radiation therapy, or brachytherapy and surveillance of the cancer with optional treatment at a later stage. For the latter treatment option, known as active surveillance, strict criteria have to be met. The advantage of active surveillance is that only patients with progressive cancer are subjected to radical therapy. Patients with very slow or non-progressing cancer do not have to undergo therapy and thus do not have to suffer from the side effects. The basic idea behind active surveillance is that some cancers will not progress to a stage that requires treatment within the lifetime of the patient and therefore do not require treatment at all. Unfortunately the criteria for active surveillance are not definitive enough at the current time leading only to a delay in effective treatment for many patients. The surveillance strategy has without doubt a high significance among the treatment options for prostate cancer; however, at the current time it lacks reliable indicators for a certain prognosis. Therefore, patients must be informed in detail about the advantages and disadvantages of active surveillance.

Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: Guideline recommendations

INTRODUCTION

The objective is to provide guidance on the role of active surveillance (AS) as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer patients and to ensure that AS is offered to appropriate patients assessed by a standardized protocol. Prostate cancer is often a slowly progressive or sometimes non-progressive indolent disease diagnosed at an early stage with localized tumours that are unlikely to cause morbidity or death. Standard active treatments for prostate cancer include radiotherapy (RT) or radical prostatectomy (RP), but the harms from over diagnosis and overtreatment are of a significant concern. AS is increasingly being considered as a management strategy to avoid or delay the potential harms caused by unnecessary radical treatment.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, guideline databases and relevant meeting proceedings was performed and a systematic review of identified evidence was synthesized to make recommendations relating to the role of AS in the management of localized prostate cancer.

RESULTS

No exiting guidelines or reviews were suitable for use in the synthesis of evidence for the recommendations, but 59 reports of primary studies were identified. Due to studies being either non-comparative or heterogeneous, pooled meta-analyses were not conducted.

CONCLUSION

The working group concluded that for patients with low-risk (Gleason score ≤6) localized prostate cancer, AS is the preferred disease management strategy. Active treatment (RP or RT) is appropriate for patients with intermediate-risk (Gleason score 7) localized prostate cancer. For select patients with low-volume Gleason 3+4=7 localized prostate cancer, AS can be considered.

Disease reclassification risk with stringent criteria and frequent monitoring in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance

OBJECTIVES

To determine the frequency of disease reclassification and to identify clinicopathological variables associated with it in patients with favourable-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance (AS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We assessed 191 men, selected by what may be the most stringent criteria used in AS studies yet conducted, who were enrolled in a prospective cohort AS trial. Clinicopathological characteristics were analysed in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model. Key features were an extended biopsy with a single core positive for Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 (<3 mm) or 3 + 4 (<2 mm) and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level <4 ng/mL (adjusted for prostate volume). Biopsies were repeated every 1-2 years and clinical evaluations every 6 months. Disease was reclassified when PSA level increased by 30% from baseline, or when biopsy tumour length increased beyond the enrolment criteria, more than one positive core was detected or any grade increased to a dominant 4 pattern or any 5 pattern.

RESULTS

Disease was reclassified in 32 patients (16.8%) including upgrading to GS 4 + 3 in five patients (2.6%). The median (interquartile range) follow-up time among survivors was 3 (1.9-4.6) years. Overall, 13 of the 32 (40.6%) had incremental increases in GS. Tumour length (hazard ratio 2.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-6.46; P = 0.007) and older age (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.00-1.09; P = 0.05) were identified as significant and marginally significant predictors of disease reclassification, respectively. Disease remained stable in 83.2% of patients.

CONCLUSION

The need persists for improvements in risk stratification and predictive indicators of cancer progression.

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.

miR-19, miR-345, miR-519c-5p serum levels predict adverse pathology in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance

Serum microRNAs hold great promise as easily accessible and measurable biomarkers of disease. In prostate cancer, serum miRNA signatures have been associated with the presence of disease as well as correlated with previously validated risk models. However, it is unclear whether miRNAs can provide independent prognostic information beyond current risk models. Here, we focus on a group of low-risk prostate cancer patients who were eligible for active surveillance, but chose surgery. A major criteria for the low risk category is a Gleason score of 6 or lower based on pre-surgical biopsy. However, a third of these patients are upgraded to Gleason 7 on post surgical pathological analysis. Both in a discovery and a validation cohort, we find that pre-surgical serum levels of miR-19, miR-345 and miR-519c-5p can help identify these patients independent of their pre-surgical age, PSA, stage, and percent biopsy involvement. A combination of the three miRNAs increased the area under a receiver operator characteristics curve from 0.77 to 0.94 (p<0.01). Also, when combined with the CAPRA risk model the miRNA signature significantly enhanced prediction of patients with Gleason 7 disease. In-situ hybridizations of matching tumors showed miR-19 upregulation in transformed versus normal-appearing tumor epithelial, but independent of tumor grade suggesting an alternative source for the increase in serum miR-19a/b levels or the release of pre-existing intracellular miR-19a/b upon progression. Together, these data show that serum miRNAs can predict relatively small steps in tumor progression improving the capacity to predict disease risk and, therefore, potentially drive clinical decisions in prostate cancer patients. It will be important to validate these findings in a larger multi-institutional study as well as with independent methodologies.

Meaningful end points and outcomes in men on active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Active surveillance is a management strategy for early-stage prostate cancer designed to balance early detection of aggressive disease and overtreatment of indolent disease. We evaluate recently reported outcomes and discuss the potentially most important endpoints for such an approach.

RECENT FINDINGS

The past 2 years have seen the publication of two trials of watchful waiting versus immediate treatment and updates of multiple active surveillance cohorts for men with early-stage prostate cancer. The watchful waiting trials demonstrated a small potential mortality benefit to immediate treatment when applied to all risk levels (6% absolute difference at 15 years), emphasizing the importance of a risk-adapted strategy. In reported active surveillance cohorts, prostate cancer death and metastasis remain rare events. Intermediate outcomes such as progression to treatment and upgrading/upstaging on final disease appear consistent among cohorts, but must be interpreted with caution when compared with historical controls of immediate treatment because of potential selection bias.

SUMMARY

The safety of active surveillance has been reinforced by recent reports. Accumulation of additional data on men with intermediate risk cancer and development and validation of new biomarkers of risk will allow refined and, likely, expanded use of this approach.

Limited ability of existing nomograms to predict outcomes in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the ability of current nomograms to predict disease progression at repeat biopsy or at delayed radical prostatectomy (RP) in a prospectively accrued cohort of patients managed by active surveillance (AS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 273 patients meeting low-risk criteria who were managed by AS and who underwent multiple biopsies and/or delayed RP were included in the study. The Kattan (base, medium and full), Steyerberg, Nakanishi and Chun nomograms were used to calculate the likelihood of indolent disease ('nomogram probability') as well as to predict 'biopsy progression' by grade or volume, 'surgical progression' by grade or stage, or 'any progression' on repeat biopsy or surgery. We evaluated the associations between each nomogram probability and each progression outcome using logistic regression with (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) values and decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

The nomogram probabilities of indolent disease were lower in patients with biopsy progression (P < 0.01) and any progression on repeat biopsy or surgical pathology (P < 0.05). In regression analyses, nomograms showed a modest ability to predict biopsy progression, adjusted for total number of biopsies (AUC range 0.52-0.67) and any progression (AUC range 0.52-0.70). Decision curve analyses showed that all the nomograms, except for the Kattan base model, have similar value in predicting biopsy progression and any progression. Nomogram probabilities were not associated with surgical progression in a subgroup of 58 men who underwent delayed RP.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing nomograms have only modest accuracy in predicting the outcomes of patients undergoing AS. Improvements to existing nomograms should be made before they are implemented in clinical practice and used to select patients for AS.

Active surveillance: oncologic outcome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To give insight into recent literature (during the past 12-18 months) reporting on oncologic outcomes of men on active surveillance.

RECENT FINDINGS

From recent published trials comparing radical prostatectomy vs. watchful waiting, we learn that radical treatment only benefits a small proportion of men and that a substantial part of men is overtreated. Therefore, active surveillance should aim at postponing treatment for most, but still generate the same disease-specific mortality as radical prostatectomy by treating only those who benefit. In this review some recent published data on prostate cancer-specific mortality under active surveillance as well as intermediate outcomes are described.

SUMMARY

Prostate cancer-specific mortality under active surveillance is very low; however, longer follow-up is warranted. When deferred radical treatment and immediate radical treatment are compared, results seem to be quite similar, suggesting that postponing treatment does not affect the outcomes of men under active surveillance. Furthermore, in the majority of men active treatment could be avoided completely, without compromising oncologic outcome.

Can delayed time to referral to a tertiary level urologist with an abnormal PSA level affect subsequent Gleason grade in the opportunistically screened population?

PURPOSE

There is growing conflict in the literature describing the effect of delayed treatment on outcomes following radical prostatectomy. There is also evidence to suggest progression of low-risk prostate cancer to develop higher grades and volumes of prostate cancer during active surveillance. It is unknown as to what affect a delay in referral of those men with abnormal screened-PSA levels have on subsequent Gleason grade.

METHODS

We identified 350 men through our rapid access prostate clinic who underwent TRUS biopsy for abnormal age-related PSA and/or abnormal clinical examination. Clinicopathological findings were compared for those with positive versus negative TRUS biopsies, and for those with initial delays in referral (<12 months, 12-18 months, and >18 months). We used ANOVA and Student's t-tests amongst other statistical tools to examine significance of clinical findings.

RESULTS

Of the 350 men who underwent TRUS biopsy, those with a delay in referral of 12 months or more were significantly associated with higher PSA titers, clinically palpable disease and likelihood of diagnosis with prostate cancer. A delay of 18 months or more led to a significantly higher risk of being diagnosed with a leading grade 4 prostate cancer, which was further supported using PSA velocity as a diagnostic tool (change >0.4 ng/ml/year).

CONCLUSION

We recommend that repeated asymptomatic abnormal age-related PSA readings and/or abnormal clinical examination in the screened population be referred without delay to a urologist for further assessment, enrolment into an active surveillance program or definitive subsequent treatment.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: an underutilized opportunity for reducing harm

The management of localized prostate cancer is controversial, and in the absence of comparative trials to inform best practice, choices are driven by personal beliefs with wide variation in practice patterns. Men with localized disease diagnosed today often undergo treatments that will not improve overall health outcomes, and active surveillance has emerged as one approach to reducing this overtreatment of prostate cancer. The selection of appropriate candidates for active surveillance should balance the risk of harm from prostate cancer without treatment, and a patient's personal preferences for living with a cancer and the potential side effects of curative treatments. Although limitations exist in assessing the potential for a given prostate cancer to cause harm, the most common metrics used today consider cancer stage, prostate biopsy features, and prostate-specific antigen level together with the risk of death from nonprostate causes based on age and overall state of health.

Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance

PURPOSE

We assessed oncologic outcomes at surgery in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer who were candidates for active surveillance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospectively collected institutional database, we identified 7,486 subjects eligible for active surveillance who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. Candidates were designated as being at low risk (stage T1c/T2a, prostate specific antigen 10 ng/ml or less, and Gleason score 6 or less) or very low risk (stage T1c, prostate specific antigen density 0.15 or less, Gleason score 6 or less, 2 or fewer positive biopsy cores, 50% or less cancer involvement per core) based on preoperative data. Adverse findings were Gleason score upgrade (score 7 or greater) and nonorgan confined cancer on surgical pathology. The relative risk of adverse findings in men at low risk with very low risk disease was evaluated in a multivariate model using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

A total of 7,333 subjects met the criteria for low risk disease and 153 had very low risk disease. The proportion of subjects at low risk found to have Gleason score upgrade or nonorgan confined cancer on final pathology was 21.8% and 23.1%, respectively. Corresponding values in those at very low risk were 13.1% and 8.5%, respectively. After adjusting for age, race, year of surgery, body mass index, and prostate specific antigen at diagnosis, the relative risk of Gleason score upgrade in men with low risk vs very low risk disease was 1.89 (95% CI 1.21-2.95). The relative risk of nonorgan confined cancer was 2.06 (95% CI 1.19-3.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Men with very low risk prostate cancer were at significantly lower risk for adverse findings at surgery compared to those with low risk disease. These data support the stratification of low risk cancer when selecting and counseling men who may be appropriate for active surveillance.

Delayed radical prostatectomy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer is associated with biochemical recurrence: possible implications for active surveillance from the SEARCH database

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly accepted as appropriate management for low-risk prostate cancer (PC) patients. It is unknown whether delaying radical prostatectomy (RP) is associated with increased risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) for men with intermediate-risk PC.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 1,561 low and intermediate-risk men from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database treated with RP between 1988 and 2011. Patients were stratified by interval between diagnosis and RP (≤ 3, 3-6, 6-9, or >9 months) and by risk using the D'Amico classification. Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze BCR. Logistic regression was used to analyze positive surgical margins (PSM), extracapsular extension (ECE), and pathologic upgrading.

RESULTS

Overall, 813 (52%) men were low-risk, and 748 (48%) intermediate-risk. Median follow-up among men without recurrence was 52.9 months, during which 437 men (38.9%) recurred. For low-risk men, RP delays were unrelated to BCR, ECE, PSM, or upgrading (all P > 0.05). For intermediate-risk men, however, delays >9 months were significantly related to BCR (HR: 2.10, P = 0.01) and PSM (OR: 4.08, P < 0.01). Delays >9 months were associated with BCR in subsets of intermediate-risk men with biopsy Gleason score ≤ 3 + 4 (HR: 2.51, P < 0.01), PSA ≤ 6 (HR: 2.82, P = 0.06), and low tumor volume (HR: 2.59, P = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

For low-risk men, delayed RP did not significantly affect outcome. For men with intermediate-risk disease, delays >9 months predicted greater BCR and PSM risk. If confirmed in future studies, this suggests delayed RP for intermediate-risk PC may compromise outcomes.

Timing of curative treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Delaying definitive therapy unfavourably affects outcomes in many malignancies. Diagnostic, psychological, and logistical reasons but also active surveillance (AS) strategies can lead to treatment delay, an increase in the interval between the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer (PCa).

OBJECTIVE

To review and summarise the current literature on the impact of treatment delay on PCa oncologic outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive search of PubMed and Embase databases until 30 September 2012 was performed. Studies comparing pathologic, biochemical recurrence (BCR), and mortality outcomes between patients receiving direct and delayed curative treatment were included. Studies presenting single-arm results following AS were excluded.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventeen studies were included: 13 on radical prostatectomy, 3 on radiation therapy, and 1 combined both. A total of 34 517 PCa patients receiving radical local therapy between 1981 and 2009 were described. Some studies included low-risk PCa only; others included a wider spectrum of disease. Four studies found a significant effect of treatment delay on outcomes in multivariate analysis. Two included low-risk patients only, but it was unknown whether AS was applied or repeat biopsy triggered active therapy during AS. The two other studies found a negative effect on BCR rates of 2.5-9 mo delay in higher risk patients (respectively defined as any with T ≥ 2b, prostate-specific antigen >10, Gleason score >6, >34-50% positive cores; or D'Amico intermediate risk-group). All studies were retrospective and nonrandomised. Reasons for delay were not always clear, and time-to-event analyses may be subject to bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment delay of several months or even years does not appear to affect outcomes of men with low-risk PCa. Limited data suggest treatment delay may have an impact on men with non-low-risk PCa. Most AS protocols suggest a confirmatory biopsy to avoid delaying treatment in those who harbour higher risk disease that was initially misclassified.

Informed prostate cancer risk-adjusted testing: a new paradigm

• Currently there is significant confusion and polarisation about prostate cancer screening for both patients and physicians alike. • We propose a risk-adjusted testing programme, which would lead to fewer patients who need to be tested and treated to save a life and also eliminate inappropriate prostate-specific antigen testing in the elderly and patients with severe co-morbidities where there is no clear benefit.

Pathological, oncologic and functional outcomes of radical prostatectomy following active surveillance

PURPOSE

We examined prostatectomy pathology, and oncologic and functional outcomes of men progressing from active surveillance to radical prostatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients on active surveillance treated with radical prostatectomy. We compared patients on active surveillance ultimately treated with radical prostatectomy to age and prostate specific antigen matched men undergoing immediate radical prostatectomy after a diagnosis of low risk disease who were candidates for active surveillance (group 1). We also compared patients on active surveillance with progression to Gleason 7 disease to men treated who had similar de novo disease (group 2) to determine whether patients on active surveillance have potentially adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 289 patients on active surveillance 41 (14.2%) underwent radical prostatectomy after a median of 35.2 months (IQR 22.8-46.6) on active surveillance. Compared to group 1, the radical prostatectomy after active surveillance group had expectedly worse pathological outcomes, whereas the pathological outcomes of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy after active surveillance with progression to Gleason 7 disease were similar to those of group 2. At a median of 3.5 years from radical prostatectomy (IQR 2.6-4.7), biochemical recurrence was low and comparable between the radical prostatectomy after active surveillance group and group 1 (2.6% vs 5.4%, p = 0.47), while erectile function was 29.0% and continence 89.7%, comparable to both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Radical prostatectomy after a period of active surveillance does not appear to result in adverse pathological outcomes compared to patients with a similar preoperative pathology.

Role of active surveillance in the management of localized prostate cancer

Active surveillance is an increasingly recognized treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Despite encouraging evidence for oncologic efficacy and reduction in morbidity, several barriers contribute to the underuse of this management strategy. Consistent selection criteria as well as identification and validation of triggers for subsequent intervention are essential. Incorporation of novel biomarkers as well as advanced imaging techniques may improve surveillance strategies by better defining eligibility as well as improving prompt detection of disease progression.

Risk of Gleason grade inaccuracies in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate increases in Gleason grade because of sample bias after immediate rebiopsy or prostatectomy for patients considered active surveillance candidates by institutional protocol.

METHODS

A contemporary medical literature search was performed using PubMed. Series were included if the patients had no more than Gleason 6 prostate cancer score on initial biopsy and underwent a prostatectomy or rebiopsy within 6 months. Patient sets using neoadjuvant hormonal therapy or focal prostate treatment were excluded.

RESULTS

In patients who would have fallen into the D'Amico low-risk prostate cancer group, 42% were found to have an increase in the Gleason score: 32% resulting in grade ≥ 7 disease and 3% grade ≥ 8. For series that limited patients to the Epstein criteria, Gleason upgrades were 34%, 29%, and 2%, respectively. Of the 139 patients whose second tissue specimens were from a rebiopsy, 17% were found to have grade ≥ 7 disease, whereas only 1 patient had grade ≥ 8. There were no consistent multivariate analysis variables among the series to predict for an increase in Gleason score.

CONCLUSION

More than one third of the patients were found to have been undergraded based on their initial prostate biopsy. Therefore, 1 biopsy alone may not be sufficient to offer active surveillance as an option. Further exploration is necessary to better ensure low-risk disease before active surveillance.

Pathological findings at radical prostatectomy in patients initially managed by active surveillance: a comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of our analysis was to determine if delays in treatment caused by active surveillance result in significant pathological changes when patients no longer meet the criteria on repeat biopsy and to study whether or not these changes may affect treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Out of 207 men who were on active surveillance, 47 (23%) no longer met the criteria after one of the repeat biopsies. Twenty-two underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution and formed the main group (Group 1) of this study. One hundred sixty-four patients met the criteria for active surveillance but underwent immediate surgery. Of these patients, we selected 38 (23%) with the lowest predicted biochemical recurrence-free survival. These patients formed the comparison group (Group 2). Pathological features as well as postoperative biochemical outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Seven patients (32%) in Group 1 and four (11%) in Group 2 have predominantly high-grade cancer (i.e., ≥4/5 + 3) at pathology. The visually estimated percent of carcinoma was also higher in patients initially managed by active surveillance (median 12.5 vs. 5.0 in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, P = 0.009). Other pathological characteristics were similar in both groups. With limited duration of follow-up, postoperative biochemical recurrence-free survival did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study has demonstrated that both tumor grade and volume may increase during active surveillance. However, the clinical significance of these changes with respect to the outcomes of delayed treatment remains to be established.

Prostate cancer mortality following active surveillance versus immediate radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

[corrected] Active surveillance has been endorsed for low-risk prostate cancer, but information about long-term outcomes and comparative effectiveness of active surveillance is lacking. The purpose of this study is to project prostate cancer mortality under active surveillance followed by radical prostatectomy versus under immediate radical prostatectomy.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A simulation model was developed to combine information on time from diagnosis to treatment under active surveillance and associated disease progression from a Johns Hopkins active surveillance cohort (n = 769), time from radical prostatectomy to recurrence from cases in the CaPSURE database with T-stage ≤ T2a (n = 3,470), and time from recurrence to prostate cancer death from a T-stage ≤ T2a Johns Hopkins cohort of patients whose disease recurred after radical prostatectomy (n = 963). Results were projected for a hypothetical cohort aged 40 to 90 years with low-risk prostate cancer (T-stage ≤ T2a, Gleason score ≤ 6, and prostate-specific antigen level ≤ 10 ng/mL).

RESULTS

The model projected that 2.8% of men on active surveillance and 1.6% of men with immediate radical prostatectomy would die of their disease in 20 years. Corresponding lifetime estimates were 3.4% for active surveillance and 2.0% for immediate radical prostatectomy. The average projected increase in life expectancy associated with immediate radical prostatectomy was 1.8 months. On average, the model projected that men on active surveillance would remain free of treatment for an additional 6.4 years relative to men treated immediately.

CONCLUSIONS

Active surveillance is likely to produce a very modest decline in prostate cancer-specific survival among men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer but could lead to significant benefits in terms of quality of life.

Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer

Active surveillance (AS) is an important management strategy for men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The need for AS is increasing due to the awareness that many PCa are identified that show a low growth potential and therefore are likely to remain clinically asymptomatic during the lifetime of an individual. Currently there is no good method to prevent the overdiagnosis of indolent cancers upfront. During the last decade, several studies on AS around the world have made observations that feed the discussion on how to select and monitor these patients, how to proceed with the research to develop a better and more precise clinical definition of indolent cancers and how to manage men under AS clinically. Furthermore, patients' perspectives have become clearer, and quality of life studies give direction to the practical approach and care for patients and partners. This paper reflects the consensus on the state of the art and the future direction of AS, based on the Inside Track Conference "Active Surveillance for low risk prostate cancer" (Chairmen: C.H. Bangma, NL, and L. Klotz, CA; Co-Chairmen: L.J. Denis, BE, and C. Parker, UK; Scientific Coordinators: M. J. Roobol, NL, and E.W. Steyerberg, NL), organized by the European School of Oncology in collaboration with Europa Uomo in Rotterdam, the Netherlands in January 2012. Topics for discussion were the optimisation of patient selection based on indolent disease definition, the incorporation of therapeutic agents into AS programs, the optimisation of patient care, and the application of emerging technologies and biomarkers.