Pathological stage distribution in patients treated with radical prostatectomy reflecting the need for protocol-based active surveillance: results from a contemporary European patient cohort

Adverse Pathological Findings at Radical Prostatectomy following Active Surveillance: Results from the Movember GAP3 Cohort

Background: Little is known about the consequences of delaying radical prostatectomy (RP) after Active Surveillance (AS) according to stringent or wider entry criteria. We investigated the association between inclusion criteria and rates, and timing of adverse pathological findings (APFs) among patients in GAP3 cohorts. Methods: APFs (GG ≥ 3, pT ≥ 3, pN > 0 and positive surgical margins [R1]) were accounted for in very low-risk (VLR: grade group [GG] 1, cT1, positive cores < 3, PSA < 10 ng/mL, PSA density [PSAD] < 0.15 ng/mL/cm3) and low-risk (LR: GG1, cT1-2, PSA ≤ 10 ng/mL) patients undergoing subsequent RP. The Kaplan−Meier method and log−rank test analyzed APF-free survival. Stratified mixed effects models analyzed association. Results: Out of 21,169 patients on AS, 1742 (VLR: 721; LR: 1021) underwent delayed RP. Most (60.8%) did not have APFs. APFs occurred more frequently (44.6% vs. 31.7%; OR 1.54, p < 0.001) and earlier (median time: 40.3 vs. 62.6 months; p < 0.001) in LR patients, and consisted of pT ≥ 3 (OR 1.47, p = 0.013) or R1 (OR 1.80, p < 0.001), but not of GG ≥ 3 or node involvement. Age (OR 1.05, p < 0.001), PSAD (OR 23.21, p = 0.003), and number of positive cores (OR 1.16, p = 0.004) were independently associated with APFs. Conclusions: AS stands as a safe option for low-risk patients, and most do not have APFs at surgery. Wider entry criteria are associated with pT3 and R1. The prognostic implications remain uncertain.

Does active surveillance avoid overtreatment in prostate cancer? Lessons learned from salvage radical prostatectomies

OBJECTIVE

Determine whether our institution´s active surveillance (AS) protocol is a suitable strategy to minimise prostate cancer overtreatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 516 patients on AS after prostate cancer diagnosis. Population divided into "per-protocol" vs "induced" AS depending on fulfilment of protocol´s inclusion criteria. Radical prostatectomies after AS were selected and stratified based on: reclassification, progression or patient anxiety. Clinicopathological features and biochemical relapse-free survival were studied. Primary endpoint was overtreatment ratio based on the presence of insignificant prostate cancer and adverse pathological features in the surgical specimen. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the biochemical relapse-free survival and compared with log-rank test.

RESULTS

304 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria; 100 proceeded to radical prostatectomy (31% "induced", 69% "per-protocol" AS). Surgery indications were reclassification, progression and anxiety in 66%, 18% and 16% of patients respectively. Rate of positive lymph nodes was higher in the progression group (11%) compared to reclassification and anxiety (5% and 0% respectively, P = .002). Positive surgical margins were more frequently reported in the progression cohort compared to reclassification (28% vs 20%). Median follow-up from diagnosis until last radical prostatectomy was 48.3 months (32.4-70). 3 year biochemical relapse-free survival in the salvage radical prostatectomy was 85.4% (95 CI 78.3-93.2). Insignificant cancer was noticed in 7% of patients (Epstein´s vs 24% Wolters´ criteria). Rate of patients with adverse pathological features was 36%.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients who underwent salvage surgery after AS were not overtreated. Radical prostatectomy should be considered a safe rescue treatment.

Does active surveillance avoid overtreatment in prostate cancer? Lessons learned from salvage radical prostatectomies

OBJECTIVE

Determine whether our institution's active surveillance (AS) protocol is a suitable strategy to minimise prostate cancer overtreatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 516 patients on AS after prostate cancer diagnosis. Population divided into «per-protocol» vs «induced» AS depending on fulfilment of protocol's inclusion criteria. Radical prostatectomies after AS were selected and stratified based on reclassification, progression or patient anxiety. Clinicopathological features and biochemical relapse-free survival were studied. Primary endpoint was overtreatment ratio based on the presence of insignificant prostate cancer and adverse pathological features in the surgical specimen. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the biochemical relapse-free survival and compared with log-rank test.

RESULTS

304 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria; 100 proceeded to radical prostatectomy (31% «induced», 69% «per-protocol» AS). Surgery indications were reclassification, progression and anxiety in 66%, 18% and 16% of patients, respectively. Rate of positive lymph nodes was higher in the progression group (11%) compared to reclassification and anxiety (5% and 0%, respectively; P=.002). Positive surgical margins were more frequently reported in the progression cohort compared to reclassification (28% vs 20%). Median follow-up from diagnosis until last radical prostatectomy was 48.3months (32.4-70). Three year biochemical relapse-free survival in the salvage radical prostatectomy was 85.4% (95%CI: 78.3-93.2). Insignificant cancer was noticed in 7% of patients (Epstein's vs 24% Wolters' criteria). Rate of patients with adverse pathological features was 36%.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients who underwent salvage surgery after AS were not overtreated. Radical prostatectomy should be considered a safe rescue treatment.

MRI to guide biopsies or avoid biopsies?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss contemporary data on the value of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for guiding the decision to biopsy men at risk for prostate cancer, as well as its utility in active surveillance programs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although a systematic 12-core biopsy is the current standard of care for men with increased suspicion for prostate cancer, MRI with or without targeted biopsy has been shown to reliably improve the detection of clinically significant disease following a prior negative biopsy. At the same time, there is a growing body of evidence to support the use of MRI for diagnostic purposes in biopsy-naive patients, as well for enrolling and monitoring men on active surveillance programs.

SUMMARY

mpMRI is an evolving technology with great promise for altering our approach to prostate cancer diagnosis and surveillance. In conjunction with targeted biopsies, MRI offers greater specificity for the detection of clinically significant cancer and therefore may help to reduce overdetection of indolent disease while minimizing the risks and limitations of systematic biopsies.

A decision analysis comparing 3 active surveillance protocols for the treatment of patients with low-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) is a viable management option for approximately 50% of men who are newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. To the authors' knowledge, no direct comparisons between the different variants of AS protocols have been conducted to date. The authors developed a microsimulation decision model to evaluate which of 3 alternative AS protocols is optimal for men with low-risk prostate cancer, and compared each of these with immediate treatment.

METHODS

Men who were diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer at age 65 years were modeled as having been treated with either immediate therapy or via each of 3 AS protocols. Modeled AS protocols represent those in the literature; a modified AS protocol was included in a sensitivity analysis. Immediate therapy included radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiotherapy, or brachytherapy. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Immediate therapy produced fewer QALYs than all variants of AS. Of the AS protocols evaluated, biennial biopsy was found to be the only efficient option, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3490 per QALY compared with immediate therapy. It delayed the need for curative therapy by a mean of 56 months, and was found to be preferred in >86.9% of cases in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. A modified version of low-intensity AS dominated all other options.

CONCLUSIONS

For a 65-year-old man with low-risk prostate cancer, AS with biennial biopsy appears to be highly cost-effective compared with common alternatives. An AS protocol using triennial biopsy was found to dominate all other strategies and should be considered for men who are comfortable with a longer period between biopsies. The optimal strategy depends on a patient's tolerance for periodic biopsies and comfort with delaying radical treatment. Physicians should incorporate these patient preferences into decision making.

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.

Differences among men on active surveillance for very low-risk prostate cancer detected through population-based versus opportunistic prostate-specific antigen-screening

INTRODUCTION

Very low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is being increasingly managed by active surveillance (AS). Our aim was to assess the influence of the origin of diagnosis on PCa characteristics and treatment rates among men with very low-risk PCa in our prospective AS cohort.

METHODS

Overall, 191 men with very low-risk PCa fulfilling Epstein-criteria underwent protocol-based AS. These men originated either from the prospective population-based screening program (P-AS) or were diagnosed by opportunistic screening (O-AS).

RESULTS

Overall, n = 86 (45.0%) originated from the P-AS group, whereas n = 105 (55.0%) from the O-AS group. On univariate Cox regression analysis, age (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-1.00; p = 0.05), origin of diagnosis (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41-1.28; p = 0.001), number of positive cores (HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.18-3.90; p = 0.01) and maximum core involvement (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99-1.05; p = 0.05) were predictors for treatment necessity. On multivariate analysis, age (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-0.99; p = 0.05), number of positive cores (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.10-3.88; p = 0.02), maximum core involvement (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.06; p = 0.04) but not origin of diagnosis were independent predictors for treatment necessity. Four men developed biochemical recurrence (all from O-AS group [p = 0.05]).

CONCLUSION

The origin of PCa diagnosis in men undergoing AS had no influence on disease progression and treatment necessity.

Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance?

PURPOSE

To determine whether multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging can help identify patients with prostate cancer who would most appropriately be candidates for active surveillance (AS) according to current guidelines and to compare the results with those of conventional clinical assessment scoring systems, including the D'Amico, Epstein, and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) systems, on the basis of findings at prostatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant retrospectively designed study included 133 patients (mean age, 59.3 years) with a mean prostate-specific antigen level of 6.73 ng/mL (median, 4.39 ng/mL) who underwent multiparametric MR imaging at 3.0 T before radical prostatectomy. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. Patients were then retrospectively classified as to whether they would have met AS eligibility criteria or were better served by surgery. AS eligibility criteria for prostatectomy specimens were a dominant tumor smaller than 0.5 mL without Gleason 4 or 5 patterns or extracapsular or seminal vesicle invasion. Conventional clinical assessment scores (the D'Amico, Epstein, and CAPRA scoring systems) were compared with multiparametric MR imaging findings for predicting AS candidates. The level of significance of difference between scoring systems was determined by using the χ(2) test for categoric variables with the level of significance set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Among 133 patients, 14 were eligible for AS on the basis of prostatectomy results. The sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and overall accuracy, respectively, were 93%, 25%, and 70% for the D'Amico system, 64%, 45%, and 88% for the Epstein criteria, and 93%, 20%, and 59% for the CAPRA scoring system for predicting AS candidates (P < .005 for all, χ(2) test), while multiparametric MR imaging had a sensitivity of 93%, a PPV of 57%, and an overall accuracy of 92% (P < .005).

CONCLUSION

Multiparametric MR imaging provides useful additional information to existing clinicopathologic scoring systems of prostate cancer and improves the assignment of treatment (eg, AS or active treatment).

Many young men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screen-detected prostate cancers may be candidates for active surveillance

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Little is known as to the potential for over-treatment of young men diagnosed with prostate cancer. We show that for men aged ≤55 years with PSA screen-detected disease, 45% of the tumours are classified as very low risk and 85% of these have favourable pathology, yet most are actively treated. These findings raise the spectre of over-treatment for a group of men likely to be affected by treatment side-effects.

OBJECTIVE

To identify a population of young men (aged <55 years at diagnosis) with very-low-risk prostate cancer (stage cT1c, with prostate-specific antigen [PSA] density of <0.15 ng/mL/g, Gleason score ≤6, and ≤2 positive biopsy cores with <50% tumour involvement) that may be candidates for active surveillance (AS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We queried a Department of Defense tumour registry and hard-copy records for servicemen diagnosed with prostate cancer from 1987 to 2010. Statistical analyses were undertaken using Fisher's exact and chi-square testing.

RESULTS

From 1987-1991 and 2007-2010, PSA screen-detected tumours diagnosed in men aged ≤55 years rose >30-fold. Data for a subset of men (174) with PSA screen-detected cancer were evaluable for disease risk assessment. Of the 174 men with screen-detected disease, 81 (47%) had very-low-risk disease. Of that group, 96% (78/81) selected treatment and, of 57 men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), the tumours of 49 (86%) carried favourable pathology (organ confined, <10% gland involvement, Gleason ≤6).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly half of young men with PSA screen-detected prostate cancer are AS candidates but the overwhelming majority seek treatment. Considering that many tumours show favourable pathology at RP, there is a possibility that these patients may benefit from AS management.

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.