Advertisement
You are prohibited from using or uploading content you accessed through this website into external applications, bots, software, or websites, including those using artificial intelligence technologies and infrastructure, including deep learning, machine learning and large language models and generative AI.
No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Oct 2013

Pathological Outcomes in Men with Low Risk and Very Low Risk Prostate Cancer: Implications on the Practice of Active Surveillance

    View All Author Information

    Purpose:

    We assessed oncologic outcomes at surgery in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer who were candidates for active surveillance.

    Materials and Methods:

    In a prospectively collected institutional database, we identified 7,486 subjects eligible for active surveillance who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. Candidates were designated as being at low risk (stage T1c/T2a, prostate specific antigen 10 ng/ml or less, and Gleason score 6 or less) or very low risk (stage T1c, prostate specific antigen density 0.15 or less, Gleason score 6 or less, 2 or fewer positive biopsy cores, 50% or less cancer involvement per core) based on preoperative data. Adverse findings were Gleason score upgrade (score 7 or greater) and nonorgan confined cancer on surgical pathology. The relative risk of adverse findings in men at low risk with very low risk disease was evaluated in a multivariate model using Poisson regression.

    Results:

    A total of 7,333 subjects met the criteria for low risk disease and 153 had very low risk disease. The proportion of subjects at low risk found to have Gleason score upgrade or nonorgan confined cancer on final pathology was 21.8% and 23.1%, respectively. Corresponding values in those at very low risk were 13.1% and 8.5%, respectively. After adjusting for age, race, year of surgery, body mass index, and prostate specific antigen at diagnosis, the relative risk of Gleason score upgrade in men with low risk vs very low risk disease was 1.89 (95% CI 1.21–2.95). The relative risk of nonorgan confined cancer was 2.06 (95% CI 1.19–3.57).

    Conclusions:

    Men with very low risk prostate cancer were at significantly lower risk for adverse findings at surgery compared to those with low risk disease. These data support the stratification of low risk cancer when selecting and counseling men who may be appropriate for active surveillance.

    References

    • 1 : Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin2010; 60: 277. Google Scholar
    • 2 : Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst2010; 102: 605. Google Scholar
    • 3 : Outcomes of localized prostate cancer following conservative management. JAMA2009; 302: 1202. Google Scholar
    • 4 : Complications of open radical retropubic prostatectomy in potential candidates for active monitoring. Urology2008; 72: 887. Google Scholar
    • 5 : Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol2011; 29: 3669. Google Scholar
    • 6 : Expert panel advocates surveillance for men with low-risk prostate cancer. JAMA2012; 307: 133. Google Scholar
    • 7 : Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results. J Urol2002; 167: 1231. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 8 : Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol2012; 62: 976. Google Scholar
    • 9 : Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol2011; 29: 2185. Google Scholar
    • 10 : Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2011; 29: 228. Google Scholar
    • 11 : Surgical management after active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: pathological outcomes compared with men undergoing immediate treatment. BJU Int2011; 107: 1232. Google Scholar
    • 12 : National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med2012; 156: 591. Google Scholar
    • 13 : NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2010; 8: 162. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 14 : Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA1994; 271: 368. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 15 : 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
    • 16 : Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med2009; 360: 1320. Google Scholar
    • 17 : Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol2010; 11: 725. Google Scholar
    • 18 : Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol2010; 28: 126. Google Scholar
    • 19 : Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer: background, patient selection, triggers for intervention, and outcomes. Curr Urol Rep2012; 13: 153. Google Scholar
    • 20 : The 2010 NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology on prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2010; 8: 145. Google Scholar
    • 21 : Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. J Clin Oncol2011; 29: 2795. Google Scholar
    • 22 : Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre ‘Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance’ study. BJU Int2010; 105: 956. Google Scholar
    • 23 : Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol2009; 181: 1628. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 24 : Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA1999; 281: 1591. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 25 : Prostate cancer mortality following active surveillance versus immediate radical prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res2012; 18: 5471. Google Scholar
    • 26 : Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol2011; 185: 477. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 27 : Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol2007; 52: 1309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 28 : Clinical and demographic characteristics associated with prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance. J Urol2012; 187: 1594. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 29 : PSA and beyond: the past, present, and future of investigative biomarkers for prostate cancer. ScientificWorldJournal2010; 10: 1919. Google Scholar
    • 30 : Radical prostatectomy outcome in men 65 years old or older with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol2012; 187: 1620. LinkGoogle Scholar
    Advertisement