Active surveillance review: contemporary selection criteria, follow-up, compliance and outcomes

Genomics in active surveillance and post-prostatectomy patients: A review of when and how to use effectively

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a significant health burden globally, ranking as the most diagnosed cancer among men and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Conventional treatment methods such as radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy have significant side effects which often impact quality of life. As our understanding of the natural history and progression of PCa has evolved, so has the evolution of management options.

RECENT FINDINGS

Active surveillance (AS) has become an increasingly favored approach to the management of very low, low, and properly selected favorable intermediate risk PCa. AS permits ongoing observation and postpones intervention until definitive treatment is required. There are, however, challenges with selecting patients for AS, which further emphasizes the need for more precise tools to better risk stratify patients and choose candidates more accurately. Tissue-based biomarkers, such as ProMark, Prolaris, GPS (formerly Oncotype DX), and Decipher, are valuable because they improve the accuracy of patient selection for AS and offer important information on the prognosis and severity of disease. By enabling patients to be categorized according to their risk profiles, these biomarkers help physicians and patients make better informed treatment choices and lower the possibility of overtreatment. Even with their potential, further standardization and validation of these biomarkers is required to guarantee their broad clinical utility. Active surveillance has emerged as a preferred strategy for managing low-risk prostate cancer, and tissue-based biomarkers play a crucial role in refining patient selection and risk stratification. Standardization and validation of these biomarkers are essential to ensure their widespread clinical use and optimize patient outcomes.

Pathological Assessment of Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

A variety of treatment options are now available for men with localized prostate cancer (PC); however, there is still debate in determining how and when to intervene for Grade Group (GG) 2 disease. Our study aims to formulate strategies to identify men at risk of upgrading and having adverse pathological outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study includes 243 patients with GG2 PC that were treated with radical prostatectomy between 2015 and 2021. Patients on active surveillance, previous history of prostate biopsy, hormonal and/or radiation therapy prior to surgery were excluded from this study. A retrospective analysis was conducted using clinicopathological data obtained from medical records.

RESULTS

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score were statistically significant variables for risk of upgrading. In men who had presence of composite poor outcomes, PSA, PI-RADS score, presence of extraprostatic extension and seminal vesical invasion on MRI, number of positive cores, percentage of high grade (pattern 4/5) on prostate biopsy and Gleason pattern 4 volume on biopsy were all statistically significant variables. Strategy 8 (PI-RADS 5 lesion or percentage high grade [Gleason pattern 4] on prostate biopsy grade >10% or >3 cores positive on prostate biopsy) had significant association to identifying the highest number of men with upgrading and composite poor outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study supports the use of strategy 8 in treatment decision making of men with GG2 PC. Further validation of the use of this strategy is warranted.

Impact of family history of prostate cancer on disease progression for prostatic cancer patients undergoing active surveillance: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate how a family history of prostate cancer influences the progression of the disease in individuals with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a thorough literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to June 2023. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023441853). The study evaluated the effects of family history of prostate cancer (intervention) on disease progression (outcome) in prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance (population) and compared them to those without a family history (comparators). For time to disease progression outcomes, the extracted data were synthesized using the inverse variance method on the log hazard ratios scale.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies were incorporated into this systematic review and meta-analysis. The combined hazard ratio for unadjusted disease progression was 1.06 (95% confidential interval [CI] 0.66-1.69; p=0.82). The combined hazard ratio for adjusted disease progression was 1.31 (95% CI 1.16-1.48; p<0.0001). All the enlisted studies demonstrated high quality based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The certainty of evidence for univariate and multivariate analysis of disease progression was very low and low, respectively. Publication bias for all studies was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

For individuals with prostate cancer opting for active surveillance, a family history of prostate cancer may serve as an independent risk factor associated with an elevated risk of disease progression. Clinicians should be counseled about the increased risk of disease progression in patients with a family history of prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance.

Expanding the role of PSMA PET in active surveillance

INTRODUCTION

Accurate grading at the time of diagnosis is fundamental to risk stratification and treatment decision making, particularly for men being considered for Active Surveillance (AS). With the introduction of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) there has been considerable improvement in sensitivity and specificity for the detection and staging of clinically significant prostate cancer. Our study aims to determine the role of PSMA PET/CT in men with newly diagnosed low or favourable intermediate risk prostate cancer to better select men for AS.

METHOD

This is a retrospective single centre study performed from January 2019 and October 2022. This study includes men identified from electronic medical record system who had undergone a PSMA PET/CT following newly diagnosed low or favourable-intermediate risk prostate cancer. Primary outcome was to assess the change in management for men being considered for AS following PSMA PET/CT results on the basis of PSMA PET characteristics.

RESULTS

In total, there were 11 of 30 men (36.67%) who were assigned management by AS and 19 of 30 men (63.33%) who had definitive treatment. 15 of the 19 men that needed treatment had concerning features on PSMA PET/CT results. Of the 15 men with concerning features on PSMA PET, 9 (60%) men were found to have adverse pathological features on final prostatectomy features.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study suggests that PSMA PET/CT has potential to influence the management of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer that would otherwise be appropriate for active surveillance.

Low-volume grade group 2 prostate cancer candidates for active surveillance: a radical prostatectomy retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

Guidelines support considering selected men with ISUP grade group (GG) 2 prostate cancer for active surveillance (AS). We assessed the association of clinical variables with unfavorable pathology at radical prostatectomy in low-volume GG 2 prostate cancer on biopsy in a retrospective cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 378 men with low-volume (≤ 2 cores) GG 2 localized prostate cancer who underwent prostatectomy at a single tertiary cancer center. Multivariable logistic regression of unfavorable pathology, upgrading to ≥ T3, or GG ≥ 3 was performed in relation to clinical factors, common variables used in AS in GG 1 and percentage Gleason 4 at biopsy. We compared the performance of potential variables with commonly used combined AS restrictions in GG 1 prostate cancer.

RESULTS

In total, 128/378 (34%) men had unfavorable pathology at radical prostatectomy. On multivariable analysis, > 5% Gleason pattern 4 was independently associated with an increased risk of GG ≥ 3. A maximum percentage core involvement > 50% was independently associated with an increased risk of pT-stage ≥ 3 and unfavorable pathology. Restriction to patients with ≤ 5% Gleason 4 decreased the upgrading of both unfavorable pathology (OR = 0.62, p = 0.041) and GG ≥ 3 (OR = 0.17, p = 0.0007) compared to the full cohort, while restriction to those with ≤ 50% of max core involvement did not.

CONCLUSION

In low-volume GG 2, the percentage of Gleason 4 of ≤ 5% was the strongest predictor in reducing upgrading at final pathology. This easily available pathological descriptor could be used to guide urologists and patients when considering AS in this setting.

J, Venkataraman SS, Kumar D, Narayanan R, Nacev A, Macaluso Jr. JN. Office-Based, Single-Sided, Low-Field MRI-Guided Prostate Biopsy

This paper describes the workflow of transperineal prostate biopsy (TBx) using the single-sided, low-field Promaxo MRI system (Promaxo Inc., Oakland, California, United States) operating at a field strength ranging between 58 and 74 millitesla (mT). Prostate cancer (PCa) is the leading cause of cancer-related death and the second most frequently diagnosed cancer in men. Systematic biopsy (SBx) with 12-14 cores is the preferred standard of care procedure. The blinded approach of SBx, however, results in several shortcomings, including high rates of false negatives and increased infection rates due to the transrectal approach. The evolution of clinical use and scientific research using different prostate biopsy modalities is discussed, including the potential for the Promaxo MRI system to mitigate logistical constraints often associated with standard magnetic resonance (MR)-guided biopsy through the utilization of an office-based, low-field MRI.

Potential of miRNAs in urinary extracellular vesicles for management of active surveillance in prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance is an alternative to radical treatment for patients with low-risk prostate cancer, which could also benefit some patients with intermediate risk. We have investigated the use of miRNA in urinary extracellular vesicles to stratify these patients.

METHODS

NGS was performed to profile the miRNAs from small urinary extracellular vesicles in a cohort of 70 patients with prostate cancer ISUP Grade 1, 2 or 3. The most promising candidates were then analysed by RT-qPCR in a new cohort of 60 patients.

RESULTS

NGS analysis identified nine miRNAs differentially expressed in at least one of the comparisons. The largest differences were found with miR-1290 (Grade 3 vs. 1), miR-320a-3p (Grade 3 vs. 2) and miR-155-5p (Grade 2 vs. 1). Combinations of 2-3 miRNAs were able to differentiate between two ISUP grades with an AUC 0.79-0.88. RT-qPCR analysis showed a similar trend for miR-186-5p and miR-30e-5p to separate Grade 3 from 2, and miR-320a-3p to separate Grade 2 from 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Using NGS, we have identified several miRNAs that discriminate between prostate cancer patients with ISUP Grades 1, 2 and 3. Moreover, miR-186-5p, miR-320a-3p and miR-30e-5p showed a similar behaviour in an independent cohort using an alternative analytical method. Our results show that miRNAs from urinary vesicles can be potentially useful as liquid biopsies for active surveillance.

Systematic Review of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer to Develop Recommendations Regarding Inclusion of Intermediate-risk Disease, Biopsy Characteristics at Inclusion and Monitoring, and Surveillance Repeat Biopsy Strategy

CONTEXT

There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa).

OBJECTIVE

To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, ≥80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy; 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement ≤50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded; (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr; and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading); patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter).

Active surveillance inclusion criteria under scrutiny in magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy: a multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is recommended for primary risk stratification and follow-up in Active Surveillance (AS), it is not part of common AS inclusion criteria. The objective was to compare AS eligibility by systematic biopsy (SB) and combined MRI-targeted (MRI-TB) and SB within real-world data using current AS guidelines.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter study was conducted by a German prostate cancer (PCa) working group representing six tertiary referral centers and one outpatient practice. Men with PCa and at least one MRI-visible lesion according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 were included. Twenty different AS inclusion criteria of international guidelines were applied to calculate AS eligibility using either a SB or a combined MRI-TB and SB. Reasons for AS exclusion were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 1941 patients with PCa, per guideline, 583-1112 patients with PCa in both MRI-TB and SB were available for analysis. Using SB, a median of 22.1% (range 6.4-72.4%) were eligible for AS. Using the combined approach, a median of 15% (range 1.7-68.3%) were eligible for AS. Addition of MRI-TB led to a 32.1% reduction of suitable patients. Besides Gleason Score upgrading, the maximum number of positive cores were the most frequent exclusion criterion. Variability in MRI and biopsy protocols potentially limit the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Only a moderate number of patients with PCa can be monitored by AS to defer active treatment using current guidelines for inclusion in a real-world setting. By an additional MRI-TB, this number is markedly reduced. These results underline the need for a contemporary adjustment of AS inclusion criteria.

Factors Associated with Time to Conversion from Active Surveillance to Treatment for Prostate Cancer in a Multi-Institutional Cohort

PURPOSE

We examined the demographic and clinicopathological parameters associated with the time to convert from active surveillance to treatment among men with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multi-institutional cohort of 7,279 patients managed with active surveillance had data and biospecimens collected for germline genetic analyses.

RESULTS

Of 6,775 men included in the analysis, 2,260 (33.4%) converted to treatment at a median followup of 6.7 years. Earlier conversion was associated with higher Gleason grade groups (GG2 vs GG1 adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.57, 95% CI 1.36-1.82; ≥GG3 vs GG1 aHR 1.77, 95% CI 1.29-2.43), serum prostate specific antigen concentrations (aHR per 5 ng/ml increment 1.18, 95% CI 1.11-1.25), tumor stages (cT2 vs cT1 aHR 1.58, 95% CI 1.41-1.77; ≥cT3 vs cT1 aHR 4.36, 95% CI 3.19-5.96) and number of cancerous biopsy cores (3 vs 1-2 cores aHR 1.59, 95% CI 1.37-1.84; ≥4 vs 1-2 cores aHR 3.29, 95% CI 2.94-3.69), and younger age (age continuous per 5-year increase aHR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99). Patients with high-volume GG1 tumors had a shorter interval to conversion than those with low-volume GG1 tumors and behaved like the higher-risk patients. We found no significant association between the time to conversion and self-reported race or genetic ancestry.

CONCLUSIONS

A shorter time to conversion from active surveillance to treatment was associated with higher-risk clinicopathological tumor features. Furthermore, patients with high-volume GG1 tumors behaved similarly to those with intermediate and high-risk tumors. An exploratory analysis of self-reported race and genetic ancestry revealed no association with the time to conversion.

MRI and Targeted Biopsy Essential Tools for an Accurate Diagnosis and Treatment Decision Making in Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most frequent causes of cancer death worldwide. Historically, diagnosis was based on physical examination, transrectal (TRUS) images, and TRUS biopsy resulting in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Recently magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been identified as an evolving tool in terms of diagnosis, staging, treatment decision, and follow-up. In this review we provide the key studies and concepts of MRI as a promising tool in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer in the general population and in challenging scenarios, such as anteriorly located lesions, enlarged prostates determining extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion, and prior negative biopsy and the future role of MRI in association with artificial intelligence (AI).

Active surveillance for prostate cancer

Many men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer can postpone definitive treatment without raising their risk of metastasis or death from disease. Active surveillance (AS) is a method of monitoring select men, with the option of switching to active treatment upon signs of progression, thereby avoiding the well-known side-effects of surgery and radiotherapy. This review analyzes the data from long-running AS cohorts to determine the safety and efficacy of AS. We conducted a narrative review of recently published data, including 14 articles from 13 AS cohorts. The cohorts used varying inclusion criteria, with reported differences in clinical T stage and Gleason Score (Grade Group), among other features. Some studies (n=5) limited their cohorts to low-risk patients, while others (n=8) also included intermediate-risk patients. The heterogeneity of the cohorts produced mixed results, with the risk of prostate cancer metastasis ranging from 0.1–1.0% at 10 years and the risk of prostate cancer mortality ranging from 0–1.9% at 10 years. However, the majority of studies reported risks of less than 0.5% at 10 years for both metastasis and death. For most cohorts, half of men remained untreated for 5–10 years, with estimates ranging from 37% receiving active treatment in the Toronto cohort to 73% in the Prostate Cancer Research International AS (PRIAS) study. Current data do not support the use of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to avoid scheduled biopsy. Taken together, the data collected from these AS cohorts suggests that AS is a safe approach for men with low-grade prostate cancer and some men with intermediate risk disease. AS should be more broadly implemented for eligible patients to avoid the decreases in quality of life from undergoing active treatment. Studies expanding the inclusion criteria and further defining a subset of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer who might safely benefit from AS are needed to assess the long-term outcomes of using AS in intermediate-risk groups.

Sextant Biopsy-Based Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Are Also Valid for the 12-Core Prostate Biopsy Scheme: A Multicenter Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey

BACKGROUND

Epstein criteria based on sextant biopsy are assumed to be valid for 12-core biopsies. However, very scarce information is present in the current literature to support this view.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the validity of Epstein criteria for clinically insignificant prostate cancer (PCa) in a cohort of the currently utilized 12-core prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) scheme in patients with low-risk and intermediate-risk PCa.

METHOD

Pathological findings were separately evaluated in the areas matching the sextant biopsy (6-core paramedian) scheme and in all 12-core schemes. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the final pathology report of RP as true clinically significant PCa (sPCa) and insignificant PCa (insPCa) groups. Predictive factors (including Epstein criteria) and cutoff values for the presence of insPCa were separately evaluated for 6- and 12-core TRUS-Bx schemes. Then, different predictive models based on Epstein criteria with or without additional biopsy findings were created.

RESULTS

A total of 442 patients were evaluated. PSA density, biopsy GS, percentage of tumor and number of positive cores, PNI, and HG-PIN were independent predictive factors for insPCa in both TRUS-Bx schemes. For the 12-core scheme, the best cutoff values of tumor percentage and number of positive cores were found to be ≤50% (OR: 3.662) and 1.5 cores (OR: 2.194), respectively. The best predictive model was found to be that which added 3 additional factors (PNI and HG-PIN absence and number of positive cores) to Epstein criteria (OR: 6.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a cutoff value of "1" for the number of positive biopsy cores and absence of biopsy PNI and HG-PIN findings can be more useful for improving the prediction model of the Epstein criteria in the 12-core biopsy scheme.

Conventional radical versus focal treatment for localised prostate cancer: a propensity score weighted comparison of 6-year tumour control

BACKGROUND

For localised prostate cancer, focal therapy offers an organ-sparing alternative to radical treatments (radiotherapy or prostatectomy). Currently, there is no randomised comparative effectiveness data evaluating cancer control of both strategies.

METHODS

Following the eligibility criteria PSA < 20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≤ 7 and T-stage ≤ T2c, we included 830 radical (440 radiotherapy, 390 prostatectomy) and 530 focal therapy (cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound or high-dose-rate brachytherapy) patients treated between 2005 and 2018 from multicentre registries in the Netherlands and the UK. A propensity score weighted (PSW) analysis was performed to compare failure-free survival (FFS), with failure defined as salvage treatment, metastatic disease, systemic treatment (androgen deprivation therapy or chemotherapy), or progression to watchful waiting. The secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Median (IQR) follow-up in each cohort was 55 (28-83) and 62 (42-83) months, respectively.

RESULTS

At baseline, radical patients had higher PSA (10.3 versus 7.9) and higher-grade disease (31% ISUP 3 versus 11%) compared to focal patients. After PSW, all covariates were balanced (SMD < 0.1). 6-year weighted FFS was higher after radical therapy (80.3%, 95% CI 73.9-87.3) than after focal therapy (72.8%, 95% CI 66.8-79.8) although not statistically significant (p = 0.1). 6-year weighted OS was significantly lower after radical therapy (93.4%, 95% CI 90.1-95.2 versus 97.5%, 95% CI 94-99.9; p = 0.02). When compared in a three-way analysis, focal and LRP patients had a higher risk of treatment failure than EBRT patients (p < 0.001), but EBRT patients had a higher risk of mortality than focal patients (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of a cohort-based analysis in which residual confounders are likely to exist, we found no clinically relevant difference in cancer control conferred by focal therapy compared to radical therapy at 6 years.

Multiparametric MRI in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: An Overview and a Practical Approach

MRI has become important for the detection of prostate cancer. MRI-guided biopsy is superior to conventional systematic biopsy in patients suspected with prostate cancer. MRI is also increasingly used for monitoring patients with low-risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. It improves patient selection for active surveillance at diagnosis, although its role during follow-up is unclear. We aim to review existing evidence and propose a practical approach for incorporating MRI into active surveillance protocols.

Advances in the selection of patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance

Early identification and management of prostate cancer completely changed with the discovery of prostate-specific antigen. However, improved detection has also led to overdiagnosis and consequently overtreatment of patients with low-risk disease. Strategies for the management of patients using active surveillance - the monitoring of clinically insignificant disease until intervention is warranted - were developed in response to this issue. The success of this approach is critically dependent on the accurate selection of patients who are predicted to be at the lowest risk of prostate cancer mortality. The Epstein criteria for clinically insignificant prostate cancer were first published in 1994 and have been repeatedly validated for risk-stratification and selection for active surveillance over the past few decades. Current active surveillance programmes use modified criteria with 30-50% of patients receiving treatment at 10 years. Nonetheless, tools for prostate cancer diagnosis have continued to evolve with improvements in biopsy format and targeting, advances in imaging technologies such as multiparametric MRI, and the identification of serum-, tissue- and urine-based biomarkers. These advances have the potential to further improve the identification of men with low-risk disease who can be appropriately managed using active surveillance.

A modified Delphi study to develop a practical guide for selecting patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance

Background

Active surveillance (AS) is a management option for men diagnosed with lower risk prostate cancer. There is wide variation in all aspects of AS internationally, from patient selection to investigations and follow-up intervals, and a lack of clear evidence on the optimal approach to AS. This study aimed to provide guidance for clinicians from an international panel of prostate cancer experts.

Methods

A modified Delphi approach was undertaken, utilising two rounds of online questionnaires followed by a face-to-face workshop. Participants indicated their level of agreement with statements relating to patient selection for AS via online questionnaires on a 7-point Likert scale. Factors not achieving agreement were iteratively developed between the two rounds of questionnaires. Draft statements were presented at the face-to-face workshop for discussion and consensus building.

Results

12 prostate cancer experts (9 urologists, 2 academics, 1 radiation oncologist) participated in this study from a range of geographical regions (4 USA, 4 Europe, 4 Australia). Complete agreement on statements presented to the participants was 29.4% after Round One and 69.0% after Round Two. Following robust discussions at the face-to-face workshop, agreement was reached on the remaining statements. PSA, PSA density, Multiparametric MRI, and systematic biopsy (with or without targeted biopsy) were identified as minimum diagnostic tests required upon which to select patients to recommend AS as a treatment option for prostate cancer. Patient factors and clinical parameters that identified patients appropriate to potentially receive AS were agreed. Genetic and genomic testing was not recommended for use in clinical decision-making regarding AS.

Conclusions

The lack of consistency in the practice of AS for men with lower risk prostate cancer between and within countries was reflected in this modified Delphi study. There are, however, areas of common practice and agreement from which clinicians practicing in the current environment can use to inform their clinical practice to achieve the best outcomes for patients.

Long-term outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in a community-based setting: results from a prospective non-interventional study

Purpose

To report on long-term outcomes of patients treated with active surveillance (AS) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) in the daily routine setting.

Methods

HAROW (2008–2013) was a non-interventional, health service research study about the management of localized PCa in the community setting, with 86% of the study centers being office-based urologists. A follow-up examination of all patients who opted for AS as primary treatment was carried out. Overall, cancer-specific, and metastasis-free survival, as well as discontinuation rates, were determined.

Results

Of 329 patients, 62.9% had very-low- and 21.3% low-risk tumours. The median follow-up was 7.7 years (IQR 4.7–9.1). Twenty-eight patients (8.5%) died unrelated to PCa, of whom 19 were under AS or watchful waiting (WW). Additionally, seven patients (2.1%) developed metastasis. The estimated 10-year overall and metastasis-free survival was 86% (95% CI 81.7–90.3) and 97% (95% CI 94.6–99.3), respectively. One hundred eighty-seven patients (56.8%) discontinued AS changing to invasive treatment: 104 radical prostatectomies (RP), 55 radiotherapies (RT), and 28 hormonal treatments (HT). Another 50 patients switched to WW. Finally, 37.4% remained alive without invasive therapy (22.2% AS and 15.2% WW). Intervention-free survival differed between the risk groups: 47.8% in the very-low-, 33.8% in the low- and 34.6% in the intermediate-/high-risk-group (p = 0.008). On multivariable analysis, PSA-density ≥ 0.2 ng/ml² was significantly predictive for receiving invasive treatment (HR 2.55; p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Even in routine care, AS can be considered a safe treatment option. Our results might encourage office-based urologists regarding the implementation of AS and to counteract possible concerns against this treatment option.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00345-020-03471-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Narrative Overview of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

-Active surveillance (AS) is a strategy employed as an alternative to immediate standard active treatments for patients with low-risk localised prostate cancer (PCa). Active treatments such as radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy are associated with significant adverse effects which impair quality of life. The majority of patients with low-risk PCa undergo a slow and predictable course of cancer growth and do not require immediate curative treatment. AS provides a means to identify and monitor patients with low-risk PCa through regular PSA testing, imaging using MRI scans and regular repeat prostate biopsies. These measures enable the identification of progression, or increase in cancer extent or aggressiveness, which necessitates curative treatment. Alternatively, some patients may choose to leave AS to pursue curative interventions due to anxiety. The main benefit of AS is the avoidance of unnecessary radical treatments for patients at the early stages of the disease, hence avoiding over-treatment, whilst identifying those at risk of progression to be treated actively. The objective of this article is to provide a narrative summary of contemporary practice regarding AS based on a review of the available evidence base and clinical practice guidelines. Elements of discussion include the clinical effectiveness and harms of AS, what AS involves for healthcare professionals, and patient perspectives. The pitfalls and challenges for healthcare professionals are also discussed.

DATA SOURCES

We consulted international guidelines, collaborative studies and seminal prospective studies on AS in the management of clinically localised PCa.

CONCLUSION

AS is a feasible alternative to radical treatment options for low-risk PCa, primarily as a means of avoiding over-treatment, whilst identifying those who are at risk of disease progression for active treatment. There is emerging data demonstrating the long-term safety of AS as an oncological management strategy. Uncertainties remain regarding variation in definitions, criteria, thresholds and the most effective types of diagnostic interventions pertaining to patient selection, monitoring and reclassification. Efforts have been made to standardise the practice and conduct of AS. As data from high-quality prospective comparative studies mature, the practice of AS will continue to evolve.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The practice of AS involves a multi-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals consisting of nurses, urologists, oncologists, pathologists and radiologists. Nurses play a prominent role in managing AS programmes, and are closely involved in patient selection and recruitment, counselling, organising and administering diagnostic interventions including prostate biopsies, and ensuring patients' needs are being met throughout the duration of AS.

Significance of nuclear factor - kappa beta activation on prostate needle biopsy samples in the evaluation of Gleason score 6 prostatic carcinoma indolence

Background

The goal of our study was to find out whether the immunohistochemical expression of nuclear factor-kappa beta (NF-κB) p65 in biopsy samples with Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 (GS 6) can be a negative predictive factor for Prostate cancer (PCa) indolence.

Patients and methods

Study was conducted on a retrospective cohort of 123 PCa patients with initial total PSA ≤ 10 ng/ml, number of needle biopsy specimens ≥ 8, GS 6 on biopsy and T1/T2 estimated clinical stage who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and whose archived formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) prostate needle biopsy specimens were used for additional immunohistochemistry staining for detection of NF-κB p65. Both cytoplasmic and nuclear NF-κB p65 expression in biopsy cores with PCa were correlated with postoperative pathological stage, positive surgical margins, GS and biochemical progression of disease.

Results

After follow-up of 66 months, biochemical progression (PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/ml) occurred in 6 (5.1%) patients, 3 (50%) with GS 6 and 3 (50%) with GS 7 after radical prostatectomy. Both cytoplasmic and nuclear NF-κB p65 expressions were not significantly associated with pathological stage, positive surgical margin and postoperative GS. Patients with positive cytoplasmic NF-kB reaction had significantly more frequent biochemical progression than those with negative cytoplasmic NF-kB reaction with PSA 0.2 ng/ml as cutoff point (p = 0.015) and a trend towards more biochemical progression with PSA ≥ 0.05 ng/ml as cutoff point (p = 0.068).

Conclusions

Cytoplasmic expression of NF-κB is associated with more biochemical progression and might be an independent prognostic factor for recurrence-free survival (RFS), but further studies including larger patient cohorts are needed to confirm these initial results.

Interobserver reproducibility of the PRECISE scoring system for prostate MRI on active surveillance: results from a two-centre pilot study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the interobserver reproducibility of the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) criteria for magnetic resonance imaging in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) at two different academic centres.

METHODS

The PRECISE criteria score the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. The system is a 1-to-5 scale, where 1 or 2 implies regression of a previously visible lesion, 3 denotes stability and 4 or 5 indicates radiological progression. A retrospective analysis of 80 patients (40 from each centre) on AS with a biopsy-confirmed low- or intermediate-risk PCa (i.e. ≤ Gleason 3 + 4 and prostate-specific antigen ≤ 20 ng/ml) and ≥ 2 prostate MR scans was performed. Two blinded radiologists reported all scans independently and scored the likelihood of radiological change (PRECISE score) from the second scan onwards. Cohen's κ coefficients and percent agreement were computed.

RESULTS

Agreement was substantial both at a per-patient and a per-scan level (κ = 0.71 and 0.61; percent agreement = 79% and 81%, respectively) for each PRECISE score. The agreement was superior (κ = 0.83 and 0.67; percent agreement = 90% and 91%, respectively) when the PRECISE scores were grouped according to the absence/presence of radiological progression (PRECISE 1-3 vs 4-5). Higher inter-reader agreement was observed for the scans performed at University College London (UCL) (κ = 0.81 vs 0.55 on a per-patient level and κ = 0.70 vs 0.48 on a per-scan level, respectively). The discrepancies between institutions were less evident for percent agreement (80% vs 78% and 86% vs 75%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Expert radiologists achieved substantial reproducibility for the PRECISE scoring system, especially when data were pooled together according to the absence/presence of radiological progression (PRECISE 1-3 vs 4-5).

KEY POINTS

• Inter-reader agreement between two experienced prostate radiologists using the PRECISE criteria was substantial. • The agreement was higher when the PRECISE scores were grouped according to the absence/presence of radiological progression (i.e. PRECISE 1-3 vs PRECISE 4 and 5). • Higher inter-reader agreement was observed for the scans performed at UCL, but the discrepancies between institutions were less evident for percent agreement.

Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the risk stratification of men with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer on active surveillance

OBJECTIVE

To assess if the adoption of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in active surveillance (AS) has improved the identification of occult higher-grade prostate cancer (PCa).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified men from the Johns Hopkins AS registry enrolled since 2013 (year of mpMRI adoption) with Grade Group (GG) 1 PCa and who underwent a single mpMRI. Men in this group were dichotomised by the presence (n = 207) or absence (negative mpMRI, n = 225) of one or more lesions with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of ≥ 3. Both groups were compared to a third cohort of men with GG1 PCa enrolled in AS prior to 2013 (pre-mpMRI era, n = 669). The risk of upgrading to GG ≥ 2 PCa on follow-up biopsies (performed with or without MRI targeting) was evaluated among the groups using survival analysis.

RESULTS

Men in both mpMRI groups underwent a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 2 (2-3) biopsies separated by a median (IQR) interval of 13 (12-16) months, whereas men in the pre-MRI era underwent a median (IQR) of 3 (2-5) biopsies, separated by a median (IQR) interval of 12 (12-14) months. The 2- and 4-year upgrade-free survival rates were 93% and 83%, 74% and 59%; and, 87% and 76% for the negative mpMRI, PI-RADS ≥ 3, and pre-mpMRI-era groups, respectively (P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, both mpMRI groups had significantly different risk of upgrading compared to pre-mpMRI-era group (negative mpMRI group: hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.95, P = 0.03; PI-RADS ≥ 3 group: HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.36-2.82, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

mpMRI improves the risk stratification of men on AS and should be used to aid enrolment and monitoring decisions.

Circulating Tumor Cell Counts in Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer Including Those Under Active Surveillance

AIM

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of a circulating tumor cell (CTC) test by comparison between healthy volunteers and patients with localized prostate cancer including those under active surveillance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CTC counts in peripheral blood were compared between patients with prostate cancer (n=45) and healthy volunteers (n=17). CTCs were identified based on the expression of epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) and counted using a SMART BIOPSY™ SYSTEM.

RESULTS

The number of EpCAM+ cells was significantly higher in patients with cancer than in healthy volunteers. Among the low-risk patients (n=9), two had up-staging and six had up-grading. Among those up-staged, there was one case which was EpCAM⁺ Among those cases up-graded, three were EpCAM⁺ In those with stage T2 tumors, the presence of Gleason pattern 5 was positively correlated with EpCAM positivity (rho=0.59, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

CTC counts in localized prostate cancer were associated with Gleason pattern 5. Active treatment should be considered for patients with low-risk disease during active surveillance who are found to have EpCAM+ CTCs because of a risk of up-staging and up-grading.

Rapid perceptual processing in two- and three-dimensional prostate images

Radiologists can identify whether a radiograph is abnormal or normal at above chance levels in breast and lung images presented for half a second or less. This early perceptual processing has only been demonstrated in static two-dimensional images (e.g., mammograms). Can radiologists rapidly extract the "gestalt" from more complex imaging modalities? For example, prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) displays a series of images as a virtual stack and comprises multiple imaging sequences: anatomical information from the T2-weighted (T2W) sequence, functional information from diffusion-weighted imaging, and apparent diffusion coefficient sequences. We first tested rapid perceptual processing in static T2W images then among the two functional sequences. Finally, we examined whether this rapid radiological perception could be observed using T2W multislice imaging. Readers with experience in prostate mpMRI could detect and localize lesions in all sequences after viewing a 500-ms static image. Experienced prostate readers could also detect and localize lesions when viewing multislice image stacks presented as brief movies, with image slices presented at either 48, 96, or 144 ms. The ability to quickly extract the perceptual gestalt may be a general property of expert perception, even in complex imaging modalities.

Defining and Measuring Adherence in Observational Studies Assessing Outcomes of Real-world Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Evidence-based guidelines for active surveillance (AS), a treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer, recommend regular follow-up at periodic intervals to monitor disease progression. However, gaps in monitoring can lead to delayed detection of cancer progression, leading to a missed window of curability.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify the extent to which real-world observational studies reported adherence to monitoring protocols among prostate cancer patients on AS. When reported, we sought to characterize definitions of adherence.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We systematically reviewed observational studies assessing outcomes of prostate cancer patients on AS, published before March 22, 2019 in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Adherence definitions were considered time bound if they included prespecified time and binary if adherence was assessed but did not specify a time interval. We assessed study quality using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Forty-five studies met our inclusion criteria. Eleven studies did not report any data on adherence to AS protocols. Twenty-five studies did not explicitly measure adherence, but provided relevant data (eg, number of patients who received a repeat biopsy). Six studies reported adherence using a time-bound definition, while three studies used a binary definition. Twenty-three studies provided information on patients lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies reporting outcomes of patients on AS did not measure or report adherence. When reported, adherence was often not time specific. As some AS patients will benefit from maintaining a window of curability, clinical practices and future studies should track and report adherence and associated factors.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed real-world observational studies examining outcomes of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. Most studies did not clearly define or report adherence to monitoring protocols, which is important to consider for appropriate disease management.

Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings

The definition of clinically significant prostate cancer is a dynamic process that was initiated many decades ago, when there was already evidence that a great proportion of patients with prostate cancer diagnosed at autopsy never had any clinical symptoms. Autopsy studies led to examinations of radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens and the establishment of the definition of significant cancer at RP: tumour volume of 0.5 cm³ , Gleason grade 6 [Grade Group (GrG) 1], and organ-confined disease. RP studies were then used to develop prediction models for significant cancer by the use of needle biopsies. The first such model was used to delineate the first active surveillance (AS) criteria, known as the 'Epstein' criteria, in which patients with a cancer Gleason score of 3 + 3 = 6 (GrG1) involving fewer than two cores, and <50% of any given core, and a prostate-specific antigen density of <0.15 ng/ml per cm³ had a minimal risk of significant cancer at RP. These were adopted as components of the 'very-low-risk category' of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, in which AS is supported as a management option. With the increase in the popularity of AS, much research has been carried out to better define significant/insignificant cancer, in order to be able to safely offer AS to a larger proportion of patients without the risk of undertreatment. Research has focused on allowing higher volume tumours, focal extraprostatic extension, and a limited amount of Gleason pattern 4, and the significance of different morphological patterns of Gleason 4. Other areas of research that will probably impact on the field but that are not covered in this review include the molecular classification of tumours and imaging techniques.

Creating a potential diagnostic for prostate cancer risk stratification (InformMDx™) by translating novel scientific discoveries concerning cAMP degrading phosphodiesterase-4D7 (PDE4D7)

Increased PSA-based screening for prostate cancer has resulted in a growing number of diagnosed cases. However, around half of these are ‘indolent’, neither metastasizing nor leading to disease specific death. Treating non-progressing tumours with invasive therapies is currently regarded as unnecessary over-treatment with patients being considered for conservative regimens, such as active surveillance (AS). However, this raises both compliance and protocol issues. Great clinical benefit could accrue from a biomarker able to predict long-term patient outcome accurately at the time of biopsy and initial diagnosis. Here we delineate the translation of a laboratory discovery through to the precision development of a clinically validated, novel prognostic biomarker assay (InformMDx™). This centres on determining transcript levels for phosphodiesterase-4D7 (PDE4D7), an enzyme that breaks down cyclic AMP, a signalling molecule intimately connected with proliferation and androgen receptor function. Quantifiable detection of PDE4D7 mRNA transcripts informs on the longitudinal outcome of post-surgical disease progression. The risk of post-surgical progression increases steeply for patients with very low ‘PDE4D7 scores’, while risk decreases markedly for those patients with very high ‘PDE4D7 scores’. Combining clinical risk variables, such as the Gleason or CAPRA (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment) score, with the ‘PDE4D7 score’ further enhances the prognostic power of this personalized, precision assessment. Thus the ‘PDE4D7 score’ has the potential to define, more effectively, appropriate medical intervention/AS strategies for individual prostate cancer patients.

[Limits of surgery in uro-oncology]

The limits of cancer surgery in uro-oncology are characterized by a carefully weighed risk of surgical feasibility and oncological necessity. The limits of uro-oncological cancer surgery do not represent fixed dogmas but ideally these more or less cognitive boundaries move based on new scientific findings, improved imaging modalities, optimized surgical techniques and perioperative care. The limits of cancer surgery are defined by patient-specific parameters, the biological aggressiveness of the tumor itself, the skills and expertise of the surgeon, and adequate perioperative care of the patient. Dependent on the origin of the cancers of the upper and lower urogenital tract, the specific particularities of each individual cancer in terms of prognosis need to be known, taking into consideration the newest molecular insights and modern multimodality treatment regimes. Only the consideration of the above mentioned basics will allow the best decision to be made with the patient concerning the optimal individual treatment. The current article highlights general parameters of the patient, tumor and surgeon which might define the limits of cancer surgery in uro-oncology. In addition, specific clinical scenarios are discussed with regard to surgery limits in cancer of the kidney, the prostate and the testis.