Risk Factors for Biopsy Reclassification over Time in Men on Active Surveillance for Early Stage Prostate Cancer
This article is commented on by the following:
Few validated clinical tools currently exist to standardize the frequency of biopsies for men on active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. We determined predictors of biopsy reclassification at specific time points after enrollment on active surveillance.
Materials and Methods:
We identified men with clinically low risk prostate cancer prospectively enrolled on active surveillance at the University of California, San Francisco between 2000 and 2016. Biopsy reclassification was defined as Gleason Grade Group 2 or greater on subsequent biopsy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to identify factors associated with risk of biopsy reclassification at first surveillance biopsy and 1 to 3, 3 to 5 and 5 to 10 years after enrollment, adjusting for clinicodemographic factors, PI-RADS® (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) score and genomic testing.
A total of 1,031 men were included in the study. On multivariable analysis biopsy reclassification was associated with prostate specific antigen density 0.15 or greater (HR 3.37, 95% CI 1.83–6.21), percentage biopsy cores positive (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-1.54) and high genomic score (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.21–6.52) at first surveillance biopsy and also at 1 to 3 years, after adjustment. Prostate specific antigen density 0.15 or greater (HR 2.36, 95% CI 1.56–3.56) and prostate specific antigen kinetics (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.43–3.34) were associated with reclassification at 3 to 5 years. A PI-RADS 4-5 score was not associated with biopsy reclassification at any time point.
High genomic score, prostate specific antigen kinetics and prostate specific antigen density 0.15 or greater were associated with reclassification within 3 years of commencing active surveillance, and prostate specific antigen kinetics and prostate specific antigen density 0.15 or greater remained associated with reclassification at 5 years after diagnosis.
- 1. : Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013. JAMA 2015; 314: 80. Google Scholar
- 2. : Practice- vs physician-level variation in use of active surveillance for men with low-risk prostate cancer: implications for collaborative quality improvement. JAMA Surg 2017; 152: 978. Google Scholar
- 3. : Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 2182. Google Scholar
- 4. : Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol 2018; 199: 683. Link, Google Scholar
- 5. : EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 618. Google Scholar
- 6. : Active surveillance for prostate cancer compared with immediate treatment: an economic analysis. Cancer 2012; 118: 3512. Google Scholar
- 7. : Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 353. Google Scholar
- 8. : Risk of metastasis in men with grade group 2 prostate cancer managed with active surveillance at a tertiary cancer center. J Urol 2020; 203: 1117. Link, Google Scholar
- 9. : 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1415. Google Scholar
- 10. : Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 272. Google Scholar
- 11. : Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 627. Google Scholar
- 12. : MRI in active surveillance: a critical review. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2019; 22: 5. Google Scholar
- 13. : Tissue-based genomics: which test and when. Curr Opin Urol 2019; 29: 598. Google Scholar
- 14. : Prognostic biomarkers used for localised prostate cancer management: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus 2018; 4: 790. Google Scholar
- 15. : Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2015; 193: 807. Link, Google Scholar
- 16. : Refined analysis of prostate-specific antigen kinetics to predict prostate cancer active surveillance outcomes. Eur Urol 2018; 74: 211. Google Scholar
- 17. : Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: guideline recommendations. Can Urol Assoc J 2015; 9: 171. Google Scholar
- 18. : Predicting biopsy outcomes during active surveillance for prostate cancer: external validation of the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study risk calculators in five large active surveillance cohorts. Eur Urol 2019; 76: 693. Google Scholar
- 19. : A 17-gene genomic prostate score as a predictor of adverse pathology in men on active surveillance. J Urol 2019; 202: 702. Link, Google Scholar
- 20. : Genomic prostate score, PI-RADS version 2 and progression in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 2019; 201: 300. Link, Google Scholar
- 21. : 17-Gene genomic prostate score test results in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) cohort. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38: 1549. Google Scholar
- 22. : The magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance “MRIAS” trial: use of baseline multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and saturation biopsy to reduce the frequency of surveillance prostate biopsies. J Urol 2020; 203: 910. Link, Google Scholar
Supported by the UCSF Goldberg-Benioff Program in Cancer Translational Biology.
No direct or indirect commercial, personal, academic, political, religious or ethical incentive is associated with publishing this article.
Editor’s Note: This article is the first of 5 published in this issue for which category 1 CME credits can be earned. Instructions for obtaining credits are given with the questions on pages 1391 and 1392.