A Multi-Institutional Evaluation of Active Surveillance for Low Risk Prostate Cancer
is accompanied by
Abstract
Purpose:
For select men with low risk prostate cancer active surveillance is more often being considered a management strategy. In a multicenter retrospective study we evaluated the actuarial rates and predictors of remaining on active surveillance, the incidence of cancer progression and the pathological findings of delayed radical prostatectomy.
Materials and Methods:
A cohort of 262 men from 4 institutions met the inclusion criteria of age 75 years or younger, prostate specific antigen 10 ng/ml or less, clinical stage T1–T2a, biopsy Gleason sum 6 or less, 3 or less positive cores at diagnostic biopsy, repeat biopsy before active surveillance and no treatment for 6 months following the repeat biopsy. Active surveillance started on the date of the second biopsy. Actuarial rates of remaining on active surveillance were calculated and univariate Cox regression was used to assess predictors of discontinuing active surveillance.
Results:
With a median followup of 29 months 43 patients ultimately received active treatment. The 2 and 5-year probabilities of remaining on active surveillance were 91% and 75%, respectively. Patients with cancer on the second biopsy (HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.23–4.06, p = 0.007) and a higher number of cancerous cores from the 2 biopsies combined (p = 0.002) were more likely to undergo treatment. Age, prostate specific antigen, clinical stage, prostate volume and number of total biopsy cores sampled were not predictive of outcome. Skeletal metastases developed in 1 patient 38 months after starting active surveillance. Of the 43 patients undergoing delayed treatment 41 (95%) are without disease progression at a median of 23 months following treatment.
Conclusions:
With a median followup of 29 months active surveillance for select patients appears to be safe and associated with a low risk of systemic progression. Cancer at restaging biopsy and a higher total number of cancerous cores are associated with a lower likelihood of remaining on active surveillance. A restaging biopsy should be strongly considered to finalize eligibility for active surveillance.
References
- 1 : Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin2008; 58: 71. Google Scholar
- 2 : Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol2007; 178: S14. Link, Google Scholar
- 3 : Nomogram use for the prediction of indolent prostate cancer: impact on screen-detected populations. Cancer2007; 110: 2218. Google Scholar
- 4 : Delayed versus immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst2006; 98: 355. Google Scholar
- 5 : Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the current literature. Cancer2008; 112: 1650. Google Scholar
- 6 : Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a critical appraisal of rationale and modalities. J Urol2007; 178: 2260. Link, Google Scholar
- 7 : Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol2007; 178: 2359. Link, Google Scholar
- 8 : Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention: using natural history to guide treatment in good risk prostate cancer. J Urol2004; 172: S48. Link, Google Scholar
- 9 : An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy. J Urol2004; 171: 1520. Link, Google Scholar
- 10 : Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int2008; 101: 165. Google Scholar
- 11 : Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst2006; 98: 715. Google Scholar
- 12 : Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int2005; 95: 956. Google Scholar
- 13 : Incidence of initial local therapy among men with lower-risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst2006; 98: 1134. Google Scholar
- 14 : Pathologic upgrading and upstaging with immediate repeat biopsy for patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol2008; 179: 51. abstract 144. Link, Google Scholar
- 15 : Change in prostate cancer grade over time in men followed expectantly for stage T1c disease. J Urol2008; 179: 901. Link, Google Scholar
- 16 : Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst2003; 95: 868. Google Scholar
- 17 : Lead time of prostate cancer detected in population based screening for prostate cancer in Japan. J Urol2007; 178: 1258. Link, Google Scholar
- 18 : Comparison of the incidence of latent prostate cancer detected at autopsy before and after the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol2005; 174: 1785. Link, Google Scholar
- 19 : Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol2008; 54: 1297. Google Scholar
- 20 : Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA2004; 291: 2713. Google Scholar
