1
|
Lenz L, Clegg W, Iliev D, Kasten CR, Korman H, Morgan TM, Hafron J, DeHaan A, Olsson C, Tutrone RF, Richardson T, Cline K, Yonover PM, Jasper J, Cohen T, Finch R, Slavin TP, Gutin A. Active surveillance selection and 3-year durability in intermediate-risk prostate cancer following genomic testing. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2024:10.1038/s41391-024-00888-y. [PMID: 39237680 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00888-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2023] [Revised: 08/16/2024] [Accepted: 08/23/2024] [Indexed: 09/07/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Genomic testing can add risk stratification information to clinicopathological features in prostate cancer, aiding in shared medical decision-making between the clinician and patient regarding whether active surveillance (AS) or definitive treatment (DT) is most appropriate. Here we examined initial AS selection and 3-year AS durability in patients diagnosed with localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer who underwent Prolaris testing before treatment decision-making. METHODS This retrospective observational cohort study included 3208 patients from 10 study sites who underwent Prolaris testing at diagnosis from September 2015 to December 2018. Prolaris utilizes a combined clinical cell cycle risk score calculated at diagnostic biopsy to stratify patients by the Prolaris AS threshold (below threshold, patient recommended to AS or above threshold, patient recommended to DT). AS selection rates and 3-year AS durability were compared in patients recommended to AS or DT by Prolaris testing. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models and Cox proportional hazard models were used with molecular and clinical variables as predictors of initial treatment decision and AS durability, respectively. RESULTS AS selection was ~2 times higher in patients recommended to AS by Prolaris testing than in those recommended to DT (p < 0.0001). Three-year AS durability was ~1.5 times higher in patients recommended to AS by Prolaris testing than in those recommended to DT (p < 0.0001). Prolaris treatment recommendation remained a statistically significant predictor of initial AS selection and AS durability after accounting for CAPRA or Gleason scores. CONCLUSIONS Prolaris added significant information to clinical risk stratification to aid in treatment decision making. Intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients who were recommended to AS by Prolaris were more likely to initially pursue AS and were more likely to remain on AS at 3 years post-diagnosis than patients recommended to DT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren Lenz
- Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Wyatt Clegg
- Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Diana Iliev
- Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | | | - Howard Korman
- Comprehensive Urology, Royal Oak, MI, USA
- Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA
| | | | | | | | - Carl Olsson
- Integrated Medical Professionals, Melville, NY, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Jeff Jasper
- Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Todd Cohen
- Myriad Genetics, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mercedes R, Head D, Zook E, Eidelman E, Tomaszewski J, Ginzburg S, Uzzo R, Smaldone M, Danella J, Guzzo TJ, Lee D, Belkoff L, Walker J, Reese A, Shah MS, Jacobs B, Raman JD. Appropriateness of Imaging for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer-Real World Data from the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaboration (PURC). Curr Oncol 2024; 31:4746-4752. [PMID: 39195337 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol31080354] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2024] [Revised: 08/12/2024] [Accepted: 08/16/2024] [Indexed: 08/29/2024] Open
Abstract
Imaging for prostate cancer defines the extent of disease. Guidelines recommend against imaging low-risk prostate cancer patients with a computed tomography (CT) scan or bone scan due to the low probability of metastasis. We reviewed imaging performed for men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer across the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative (PURC), a physician-led data sharing and quality improvement collaborative. The data of 10 practices were queried regarding the imaging performed in men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2015 to 2022. The cohort included 13,122 patients with 3502 (27%) low-risk, 2364 (18%) favorable intermediate-risk, 3585 (27%) unfavorable intermediate-risk, and 3671 (28%) high-risk prostate cancer, based on the AUA guidelines. Amongst the low-risk patients, imaging utilization included pelvic MRI (59.7%), bone scan (17.8%), CT (16.0%), and PET-based imaging (0.5%). Redundant imaging occurred in 1022 patients (29.2%). There was variability among the PURC sites for imaging used in the low-risk patients, and iterative education reduced the need for CT and bone scans. Approximately 15% of low-risk patients had staging imaging performed using either a CT or bone scan, and redundant imaging occurred in almost one-third of men. Such data underscore the need for continued guideline-based education to optimize the stewardship of resources and reduce unnecessary costs to the healthcare system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raidizon Mercedes
- Department of Urology, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA
| | - Dennis Head
- Department of Urology, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA
| | - Elizabeth Zook
- Department of Urology, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA
| | - Eric Eidelman
- Department of Urology, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA
| | | | - Serge Ginzburg
- Department of Urology, Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, PA 19141, USA
| | - Robert Uzzo
- Department of Urology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, USA
| | - Marc Smaldone
- Department of Urology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, USA
| | - John Danella
- Department of Urology, Geisinger Health, Danville, PA 17822, USA
| | - Thomas J Guzzo
- Department of Urology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Daniel Lee
- Department of Urology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | | | | | - Adam Reese
- Department of Urology, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 19140, USA
| | - Mihir S Shah
- Department of Urology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA
| | - Bruce Jacobs
- Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, USA
| | - Jay D Raman
- Department of Urology, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Saunders EJ, Dadaev T, Brook MN, Wakerell S, Govindasami K, Rageevakumar R, Hussain N, Osborne A, Keating D, Lophatananon A, Muir KR, Darst BF, Conti DV, Haiman CA, Antoniou AC, Eeles RA, Kote-Jarai Z. Identification of Genes with Rare Loss of Function Variants Associated with Aggressive Prostate Cancer and Survival. Eur Urol Oncol 2024; 7:248-257. [PMID: 38458890 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.02.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2023] [Revised: 01/10/2024] [Accepted: 02/09/2024] [Indexed: 03/10/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate cancer (PrCa) is a substantial cause of mortality among men globally. Rare germline mutations in BRCA2 have been validated robustly as increasing risk of aggressive forms with a poorer prognosis; however, evidence remains less definitive for other genes. OBJECTIVE To detect genes associated with PrCa aggressiveness, through a pooled analysis of rare variant sequencing data from six previously reported studies in the UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study (UKGPCS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We accumulated a cohort of 6805 PrCa cases, in which a set of ten candidate genes had been sequenced in all samples. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS We examined the association between rare putative loss of function (pLOF) variants in each gene and aggressive classification (defined as any of death from PrCa, metastatic disease, stage T4, or both stage T3 and Gleason score ≥8). Secondary analyses examined staging phenotypes individually. Cox proportional hazards modelling and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to further examine the relationship between mutation status and survival. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS We observed associations between PrCa aggressiveness and pLOF mutations in ATM, BRCA2, MSH2, and NBN (odds ratio = 2.67-18.9). These four genes and MLH1 were additionally associated with one or more secondary analysis phenotype. Carriers of germline mutations in these genes experienced shorter PrCa-specific survival (hazard ratio = 2.15, 95% confidence interval 1.79-2.59, p = 4 × 10-16) than noncarriers. CONCLUSIONS This study provides further support that rare pLOF variants in specific genes are likely to increase aggressive PrCa risk and may help define the panel of informative genes for screening and treatment considerations. PATIENT SUMMARY By combining data from several previous studies, we have been able to enhance knowledge regarding genes in which inherited mutations would be expected to increase the risk of more aggressive PrCa. This may, in the future, aid in the identification of men at an elevated risk of dying from PrCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edward J Saunders
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Tokhir Dadaev
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Mark N Brook
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Sarah Wakerell
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Koveela Govindasami
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Reshma Rageevakumar
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Nafisa Hussain
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Andrea Osborne
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Diana Keating
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | | | - Kenneth R Muir
- Division of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Burcu F Darst
- Center for Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - David V Conti
- Center for Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Christopher A Haiman
- Center for Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Rosalind A Eeles
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Zsofia Kote-Jarai
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Gelikman DG, Kenigsberg AP, Mee Law Y, Yilmaz EC, Harmon SA, Parikh SH, Hyman JA, Huth H, Koller CR, Nethala D, Hesswani C, Merino MJ, Gurram S, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Turkbey B. Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy and Inter-reader Agreement of the Prostate Imaging After Focal Ablation Scoring System. EUR UROL SUPPL 2024; 62:74-80. [PMID: 38468864 PMCID: PMC10925932 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.02.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/20/2024] [Indexed: 03/13/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and objective Focal therapy (FT) is increasingly recognized as a promising approach for managing localized prostate cancer (PCa), notably reducing treatment-related morbidities. However, post-treatment anatomical changes present significant challenges for surveillance using current imaging techniques. This study aimed to evaluate the inter-reader agreement and efficacy of the Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) scoring system in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on post-FT multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving patients who underwent primary FT for localized csPCa between 2013 and 2023, followed by post-FT mpMRI and a prostate biopsy. Two expert genitourinary radiologists retrospectively evaluated post-FT mpMRI using PI-FAB. The key measures included inter-reader agreement of PI-FAB scores, assessed by quadratic weighted Cohen's kappa (κ), and the system's efficacy in predicting in-field recurrence of csPCa, with a PI-FAB score cutoff of 3. Additional diagnostic metrics including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy were also evaluated. Key findings and limitations Scans from 38 patients were analyzed, revealing a moderate level of agreement in PI-FAB scoring (κ = 0.56). Both radiologists achieved sensitivity of 93% in detecting csPCa, although specificity, PPVs, NPVs, and accuracy varied. Conclusions and clinical implications The PI-FAB scoring system exhibited high sensitivity with moderate inter-reader agreement in detecting in-field recurrence of csPCa. Despite promising results, its low specificity and PPV necessitate further refinement. These findings underscore the need for larger studies to validate the clinical utility of PI-FAB, potentially aiding in standardizing post-treatment surveillance. Patient summary Focal therapy has emerged as a promising approach for managing localized prostate cancer, but limitations in current imaging techniques present significant challenges for post-treatment surveillance. The Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) scoring system showed high sensitivity for detecting in-field recurrence of clinically significant prostate cancer. However, its low specificity and positive predictive value necessitate further refinement. Larger, more comprehensive studies are needed to fully validate its clinical utility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David G. Gelikman
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Alexander P. Kenigsberg
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Yan Mee Law
- Department of Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| | - Enis C. Yilmaz
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Stephanie A. Harmon
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Sahil H. Parikh
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Jason A. Hyman
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Hannah Huth
- Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
- Department of Radiology, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Christopher R. Koller
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Daniel Nethala
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Charles Hesswani
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Maria J. Merino
- Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Sandeep Gurram
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Peter L. Choyke
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Bradford J. Wood
- Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
- Department of Radiology, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Peter A. Pinto
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mukherjee S, Papadopoulos D, Norris JM, Wani M, Madaan S. Comparison of Outcomes of Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Versus Low-Risk Localised Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med 2023; 12:jcm12072732. [PMID: 37048815 PMCID: PMC10094761 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12072732] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2023] [Revised: 03/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/25/2023] [Indexed: 04/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Currently, there is no clear consensus regarding the role of active surveillance (AS) in the management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) patients. We aim to analyse data from the available literature on the outcomes of AS in the management of IRPC patients and compare them with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) patients. A comprehensive literature search was performed, and relevant data were extracted. Our primary outcome was treatment-free survival, and secondary outcomes were metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. The DerSimonian–Laird random-effects method was used for the meta-analysis. Out of 712 studies identified following an initial search, 25 studies were included in the systematic review. We found that both IRPC and LRPC patients had nearly similar 5, 10, and 15 year treatment-free survival rate, 5 and 10 year metastasis-free survival rate, and 5 year overall survival rate. However, cancer-specific survival rates at 5, 10, and 15 years were significantly lower in IRPC compared to LRPC group. Furthermore, IRPC patients had significantly inferior long-term overall survival rate (10 and 15 year) and metastasis-free survival rate (15 year) compared to LRPC patients. Both the clinicians and the patients can consider this information during the informed decision-making process before choosing AS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Subhabrata Mukherjee
- Department of Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Fulham Palace Rd, London W6 8RF, UK
| | - Dimitrios Papadopoulos
- Department of Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Fulham Palace Rd, London W6 8RF, UK
| | - Joseph M. Norris
- Department of Urology, West Middlesex University Hospital, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation, Twickenham Rd, Isleworth TW7 6AF, UK
| | - Mudassir Wani
- Department of Urology, Swansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea SA6 6NL, UK
| | - Sanjeev Madaan
- Department of Urology, Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust, Dartford DA2 8DA, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sherer MV, Leonard AJ, Nelson TJ, Courtney PT, Guram K, Rodrigues De Moraes G, Javier-Desloges J, Kane C, McKay RR, Rose BS, Bagrodia A. Prognostic Value of the Intermediate-risk Feature in Men with Favorable Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: Implications for Active Surveillance. EUR UROL SUPPL 2023; 50:61-67. [PMID: 37101776 PMCID: PMC10123417 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.02.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/03/2023] [Indexed: 02/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Guidelines suggest that active surveillance (AS) may be considered for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk (fIR) prostate cancer. Objective To compare the outcomes between fIR prostate cancer patients included by Gleason score (GS) or prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Most patients are classified with fIR disease due to either a 3 + 4 = 7 GS (fIR-GS) or a PSA level of 10-20 ng/ml (fIR-PSA). Previous research suggests that inclusion by GS 7 may be associated with worse outcomes. Design setting and participants We conducted a retrospective cohort study of US veterans diagnosed with fIR prostate cancer from 2001 to 2015. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis We compared the incidence of metastatic disease, prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), all-cause mortality (ACM), and receipt of definitive treatment between fIR-PSA and fIR-GS patients managed with AS. Outcomes were compared with those of a previously published cohort of patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease using cumulative incidence function and Gray's test for statistical significance. Results and limitations The cohort included 663 men; 404 had fIR-GS (61%) and 249 fIR-PSA (39%). There was no evidence of difference in the incidence of metastatic disease (8.6% vs 5.8%, p = 0.77), receipt of definitive treatment (77.6% vs 81.5%, p = 0.43), PCSM (5.7% vs 2.5%, p = 0.274), and ACM (16.8% vs 19.1%, p = 0.14) between the fIR-PSA and fIR-GS groups at 10 yr. On multivariate regression, unfavorable intermediate-risk disease was associated with higher rates of metastatic disease, PCSM, and ACM. Limitations included varying surveillance protocols. Conclusions There is no evidence of difference in oncological and survival outcomes between men with fIR-PSA and fIR-GS prostate cancer undergoing AS. Thus, presence of GS 7 disease alone should not exclude patients from consideration of AS. Shared decision-making should be utilized to optimize management for each patient. Patient summary In this report, we compared the outcomes of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the Veterans Health Administration. We found no significant difference between survival and oncological outcomes.
Collapse
|
7
|
Baboudjian M, Breda A, Roumeguère T, Uleri A, Roche JB, Touzani A, Lacetera V, Beauval JB, Diamand R, Simone G, Windisch O, Benamran D, Fourcade A, Fiard G, Durand-Labrunie C, Roumiguié M, Sanguedolce F, Oderda M, Barret E, Fromont G, Dariane C, Charvet AL, Gondran-Tellier B, Bastide C, Lechevallier E, Palou J, Ruffion A, Van Der Bergh RCN, Peltier A, Ploussard G. Expanding inclusion criteria for active surveillance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a machine learning approach. World J Urol 2023; 41:1301-1308. [PMID: 36920491 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04353-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2022] [Accepted: 02/26/2023] [Indexed: 03/16/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To develop new selection criteria for active surveillance (AS) in intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients. METHODS Retrospective study including patients from 14 referral centers who underwent pre-biopsy mpMRI, image-guided biopsies and radical prostatectomy. The cohort included biopsy-naive IR PCa patients who met the following inclusion criteria: Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 1-2, PSA < 20 ng/mL, and cT1-cT2 tumors. We relied on a recursive machine learning partitioning algorithm developed to predict adverse pathological features (i.e., ≥ pT3a and/or pN + and/or GGG ≥ 3). RESULTS A total of 594 patients with IR PCa were included, of whom 220 (37%) had adverse features. PI-RADS score (weight:0.726), PSA density (weight:0.158), and clinical T stage (weight:0.116) were selected as the most informative risk factors to classify patients according to their risk of adverse features, leading to the creation of five risk clusters. The adverse feature rates for cluster #1 (PI-RADS ≤ 3 and PSA density < 0.15), cluster #2 (PI-RADS 4 and PSA density < 0.15), cluster #3 (PI-RADS 1-4 and PSA density ≥ 0.15), cluster #4 (normal DRE and PI-RADS 5), and cluster #5 (abnormal DRE and PI-RADS 5) were 11.8, 27.9, 37.3, 42.7, and 65.1%, respectively. Compared with the current inclusion criteria, extending the AS criteria to clusters #1 + #2 or #1 + #2 + #3 would increase the number of eligible patients (+ 60 and + 253%, respectively) without increasing the risk of adverse pathological features. CONCLUSIONS The newly developed model has the potential to expand the number of patients eligible for AS without compromising oncologic outcomes. Prospective validation is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Baboudjian
- Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hôpital, Quint Fonsegrives, France. .,Department of Urology, North Hospital, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, Marseille, France. .,Department of Urology, La Conception Hospital, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, Marseille, France. .,Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
| | - Alberto Breda
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Thierry Roumeguère
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Alessandro Uleri
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Alae Touzani
- Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hôpital, Quint Fonsegrives, France
| | - Vito Lacetera
- Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedali Riuniti Marche Nord, Pesaro, Italy
| | | | - Romain Diamand
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Guiseppe Simone
- Department of Urology, IRCCS "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Olivier Windisch
- Division of Urology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Daniel Benamran
- Division of Urology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Alexandre Fourcade
- Department of Urology, Hôpital Cavale Blanche, CHRU Brest, Brest, France
| | - Gaelle Fiard
- Department of Urology, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC, Grenoble, France
| | | | - Mathieu Roumiguié
- Department of Urology, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France
| | - Francesco Sanguedolce
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Marco Oderda
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences - Urology, Città Della Salute E Della Scienza Di Torino - Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Eric Barret
- Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France
| | | | - Charles Dariane
- Department of Urology, U1151 Inserm-INEM, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, APHP, Paris University, Necker, Paris, France
| | - Anne-Laure Charvet
- Department of Urology, La Conception Hospital, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, Marseille, France
| | - Bastien Gondran-Tellier
- Department of Urology, La Conception Hospital, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, Marseille, France
| | - Cyrille Bastide
- Department of Urology, North Hospital, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, Marseille, France
| | - Eric Lechevallier
- Department of Urology, La Conception Hospital, Aix-Marseille University, APHM, Marseille, France
| | - Joan Palou
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Alain Ruffion
- Service d'urologie Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.,Equipe 2, Centre d'Innovation en Cancérologie de Lyon (EA 3738 CICLY), Faculté de Médecine Lyon Sud, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France
| | | | - Alexandre Peltier
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kenigsberg AP, Ahdoot M, Turkbey B, Pinto PA. Re: Prostate Cancer Screening with PSA and MRI Followed by Targeted Biopsy Only. Eur Urol 2023; 83:582-583. [PMID: 36907691 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.02.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2023] [Accepted: 02/20/2023] [Indexed: 03/12/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander P Kenigsberg
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
| | - Michael Ahdoot
- Department of Urology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Baris Turkbey
- Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Peter A Pinto
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Thankapannair V, Keates A, Barrett T, Gnanapragasam VJ. Prospective Implementation and Early Outcomes of a Risk-stratified Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Follow-up Protocol. EUR UROL SUPPL 2023; 49:15-22. [PMID: 36874604 PMCID: PMC9975013 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.12.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/15/2022] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Active surveillance (AS) is a major management option for men with early prostate cancer. Current guidelines however advocate identical AS follow-up for all without considering different disease trajectories. We previously proposed a pragmatic three-tier STRATified CANcer Surveillance (STRATCANS) follow-up strategy based on different progression risks from clinic-pathological and imaging features. Objective To report early outcomes from the implementation of the STRATCANS protocol in our centre. Design setting and participants Men on AS were enrolled into a prospective stratified follow-up programme. Intervention Three tiers of increasing follow-up intensity based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) 1 or 2, prostate-specific antigen density, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Likert score at entry. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Rates of progression to CPG ≥3, any pathological progression, AS attrition, and patient choice for treatment were assessed. Differences in progression were compared with chi-square statistics. Results and limitations Data from 156 men (median age 67.3 yr) were analysed. Of these, 38.4% had CPG2 disease and 27.5% had grade group 2 disease at diagnosis. The median time on AS was 4 yr (interquartile range 3.2-4.9) and 1.5 yr on STRATCANS. Overall, 135/156 (86.5%) men remained on AS or converted to watchful waiting and 6/156 (3.8%) stopped AS by choice by the end of the evaluation period. Of the 156 patients, 66 (42.3%) were allocated to STRATCANS 1 (least intense follow-up), 61 (39.1%) to STRATCANS 2, and 29 (18.6%) to STRATCANS 3 (highest intensity). By increasing STRATCANS tier, progression rates to CPG ≥3 and any progression events were 0% and 4.6%, 3.4% and 8.6%, and 7.4% and 22.2%, respectively (p = 0.019). Modelling resource usage suggested potential reductions in appointments by 22% and MRI by 42% compared with current NICE guideline recommendations (first 12 months of AS). The study is limited by short follow-up, a relatively small cohort, and being single centre. Conclusions A simple risk-tiered AS strategy is possible with early outcomes supporting stratified follow-up intensity. STRATCANS implementation could de-escalate follow-up in men at a low risk of progression while husbanding resources for those who need closer follow-up. Patient summary We report a practical way to personalise follow-up for men on active surveillance for early prostate cancer. Our method may allow reductions in the follow-up burden for men at a low risk of disease change while maintaining vigilance for those at a higher risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vineetha Thankapannair
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Alexandra Keates
- Cambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tristan Barrett
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Vincent J Gnanapragasam
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.,Cambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.,Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Baboudjian M, Breda A, Rajwa P, Gallioli A, Gondran-Tellier B, Sanguedolce F, Verri P, Diana P, Territo A, Bastide C, Spratt DE, Loeb S, Tosoian JJ, Leapman MS, Palou J, Ploussard G. Active Surveillance for Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Metaregression. Eur Urol Oncol 2022; 5:617-627. [PMID: 35934625 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.07.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2022] [Revised: 07/11/2022] [Accepted: 07/20/2022] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly selected among patients with localized, intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa). However, the safety and optimal candidate selection for those with IR PCa remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE To evaluate treatment-free survival and oncologic outcomes in patients with IR PCa managed with AS and to compare with AS outcomes in low-risk (LR) PCa patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A literature search was conducted through February 2022 using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. The coprimary outcomes were treatment-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival. A subgroup analysis was planned a priori to explore AS outcomes when limiting inclusion to IR patients with a Gleason grade (GG) of ≤2. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A total of 25 studies including 29 673 unselected IR patients met our inclusion criteria. The 10-yr treatment-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival ranged from 19.4% to 69%, 80.8% to 99%, 88.2% to 99%, and 59.4% to 83.9%, respectively. IR patients had similar treatment-free survival to LR patients (risk ratio [RR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99-1.36, p = 0.07), but significantly higher risks of metastasis (RR 5.79, 95% CI, 4.61-7.29, p < 0.001), death from PCa (RR 3.93, 95% CI, 2.93-5.27, p < 0.001), and all-cause death (RR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.11-1.86, p = 0.005). In a subgroup analysis of studies including patients with GG ≤2 only (n = 4), treatment-free survival (RR 1.03, 95% CI, 0.62-1.71, p = 0.91) and metastasis-free survival (RR 2.09, 95% CI, 0.75-5.82, p = 0.16) were similar between LR and IR patients. Treatment-free survival was significantly reduced in subgroups of patients with unfavorable IR disease and increased cancer length on biopsy. CONCLUSIONS The present systematic review and meta-analysis highlight the need to optimize patient selection for those with IR features. Our findings support limiting the inclusion of IR patients in AS to those with low-volume GG 2 tumor. PATIENT SUMMARY Active surveillance is increasingly used in patients with localized, intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer. In this population, we have reported higher risks of metastasis and cancer mortality in unselected patients than in patients with low-risk features, underscoring the need to optimize the selection of patients with IR features.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Baboudjian
- Department of Urology, APHM, North Academic Hospital, Marseille, France; Department of Urology, APHM, La Conception Hospital, Marseille, France; Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hôpital, Quint Fonsegrives, France.
| | - Alberto Breda
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Pawel Rajwa
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
| | - Andrea Gallioli
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Francesco Sanguedolce
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, Université degli Studi di Sassari, Italy
| | - Paolo Verri
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Pietro Diana
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Angelo Territo
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Cyrille Bastide
- Department of Urology, APHM, North Academic Hospital, Marseille, France
| | - Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Stacy Loeb
- Department of Urology and Population Health, New York University and Manhattan Veterans Affairs, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jeffrey J Tosoian
- Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | | | - Joan Palou
- Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Guillaume Ploussard
- Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hôpital, Quint Fonsegrives, France; Department of Urology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Current Data. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14174161. [PMID: 36077698 PMCID: PMC9454661 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14174161] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2022] [Revised: 08/23/2022] [Accepted: 08/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary AS is an option for the initial management of selected patients with intermediate-risk PC. The proper way to predict which men will have an aggressive clinical course or indolent PC who would benefit from AS has not been unveiled. Genetics and MRI can help in the decision-making, but it remains unclear which men would benefit from which tests. In addition, there are several differences between AS protocols in inclusion criteria, monitoring follow-up, and triggers for active treatment. Large series and a few RCTs are under investigation, and more research is needed to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with intermediate-risk PC. This study summarizes the current data on patients with intermediate-risk PC under AS, recent findings, and discusses future directions. Abstract Active surveillance (AS) is a monitoring strategy to avoid or defer curative treatment, minimizing the side effects of radiotherapy and prostatectomy without compromising survival. AS in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC) has increasingly become used. There is heterogeneity in intermediate-risk PC patients. Some of them have an aggressive clinical course and require active treatment, while others have indolent disease and may benefit from AS. However, intermediate-risk patients have an increased risk of metastasis, and the proper way to select the best candidates for AS is unknown. In addition, there are several differences between AS protocols in inclusion criteria, monitoring follow-up, and triggers for active treatment. A few large series and randomized trials are under investigation. Therefore, more research is needed to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with intermediate-risk disease. This study summarizes the current data on patients with intermediate-risk PC under AS, recent findings, and discusses future directions.
Collapse
|