Patient opinions on controversies: In regard to low-risk prostate cancer, is Gleason 6 the old Gleason 5?

329

Background: In 2005, the International Society of Urologic Pathology effectively eliminated Gleason patterns 1 and 2, thus removing Gleason grades 2-5 as a cancer diagnosis. Today, patients with low-risk Gleason 6 prostate cancer, prostate cancer clinicians, guideline writers, and policymakers are facing issues about whether Gleason 6 lesions should be reclassified as noncancer. Some of the issues being discussed among urologists, radiation oncologists, and pathologists focus on whether to reclassify low-risk Gleason 6 prostate lesions as a noncancer with the goal of reducing patient anxiety and financial toxicity. We also asked about biopsy methods, which affects both the low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk populations, that have been a major topic in support organizations over the past two years. We conducted this survey of patients on active surveillance to determine where patients stand on these issues to help guide clinicians, policymakers, and guideline writers. Methods: We conducted a survey in October 2022 asking patients their views on these issues. We invited patients on active surveillance or previously on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer to respond to a 40-question survey to share their views on a range of topics related to the diagnosis of Gleason grade 6 lesions as cancer, as well as complementary issues related to innovations in biopsy and active surveillance. We had access to email lists containing ~2,500 names from the AnCan Foundation’s Active Surveillance Virtual Support Group, Active Surveillance Patients International, Prostate Cancer Support Canada, and The Active Surveillor newsletter. Other major prostate cancer support groups also distributed links to the questionnaire posted on SurveyMonkey. Results: At the deadline for placeholders for abstracts, the survey is underway. Questions for patients include: Have you experienced distress (anxiety or depression) because of the cancer label from Gleason 6? Have you experienced financial toxicity, including cancellation of insurance policies or an increase in rates, because of the cancer diagnosis? If Gleason 6 was reclassified as a noncancer, would you stop surveillance? What will you prefer as a next biopsy--transperineal to avoid the risk of sepsis and other infections or transrectal which may cause less immediate pain? Conclusions: We intend that the results will inform decision making as to the classification of Gleason 6 diagnoses.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

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

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

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

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PATIENT SUMMARY

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