Obligatory information that a patient diagnosed of prostate cancer and candidate for an active surveillance protocol must know

Does active surveillance avoid overtreatment in prostate cancer? Lessons learned from salvage radical prostatectomies

OBJECTIVE

Determine whether our institution´s active surveillance (AS) protocol is a suitable strategy to minimise prostate cancer overtreatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 516 patients on AS after prostate cancer diagnosis. Population divided into "per-protocol" vs "induced" AS depending on fulfilment of protocol´s inclusion criteria. Radical prostatectomies after AS were selected and stratified based on: reclassification, progression or patient anxiety. Clinicopathological features and biochemical relapse-free survival were studied. Primary endpoint was overtreatment ratio based on the presence of insignificant prostate cancer and adverse pathological features in the surgical specimen. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the biochemical relapse-free survival and compared with log-rank test.

RESULTS

304 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria; 100 proceeded to radical prostatectomy (31% "induced", 69% "per-protocol" AS). Surgery indications were reclassification, progression and anxiety in 66%, 18% and 16% of patients respectively. Rate of positive lymph nodes was higher in the progression group (11%) compared to reclassification and anxiety (5% and 0% respectively, P = .002). Positive surgical margins were more frequently reported in the progression cohort compared to reclassification (28% vs 20%). Median follow-up from diagnosis until last radical prostatectomy was 48.3 months (32.4-70). 3 year biochemical relapse-free survival in the salvage radical prostatectomy was 85.4% (95 CI 78.3-93.2). Insignificant cancer was noticed in 7% of patients (Epstein´s vs 24% Wolters´ criteria). Rate of patients with adverse pathological features was 36%.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients who underwent salvage surgery after AS were not overtreated. Radical prostatectomy should be considered a safe rescue treatment.

Does active surveillance avoid overtreatment in prostate cancer? Lessons learned from salvage radical prostatectomies

OBJECTIVE

Determine whether our institution's active surveillance (AS) protocol is a suitable strategy to minimise prostate cancer overtreatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 516 patients on AS after prostate cancer diagnosis. Population divided into «per-protocol» vs «induced» AS depending on fulfilment of protocol's inclusion criteria. Radical prostatectomies after AS were selected and stratified based on reclassification, progression or patient anxiety. Clinicopathological features and biochemical relapse-free survival were studied. Primary endpoint was overtreatment ratio based on the presence of insignificant prostate cancer and adverse pathological features in the surgical specimen. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the biochemical relapse-free survival and compared with log-rank test.

RESULTS

304 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria; 100 proceeded to radical prostatectomy (31% «induced», 69% «per-protocol» AS). Surgery indications were reclassification, progression and anxiety in 66%, 18% and 16% of patients, respectively. Rate of positive lymph nodes was higher in the progression group (11%) compared to reclassification and anxiety (5% and 0%, respectively; P=.002). Positive surgical margins were more frequently reported in the progression cohort compared to reclassification (28% vs 20%). Median follow-up from diagnosis until last radical prostatectomy was 48.3months (32.4-70). Three year biochemical relapse-free survival in the salvage radical prostatectomy was 85.4% (95%CI: 78.3-93.2). Insignificant cancer was noticed in 7% of patients (Epstein's vs 24% Wolters' criteria). Rate of patients with adverse pathological features was 36%.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients who underwent salvage surgery after AS were not overtreated. Radical prostatectomy should be considered a safe rescue treatment.

Update and optimization of active surveillance in prostate cancer in 2021

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Within the paradigm shift of the last decade in the management of prostate cancer (PCa), perhaps the most relevant event has been the emergence of active surveillance (AS) as a mandatory strategy in low-risk disease. We carry out a critical review of the clinical, pathological and radiological improvements that allow optimizing AS in 2021.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Critical narrative review of the literature on improvement issues and controversial aspects of AS.

RESULTS

Adequate use of traditional criteria, optimized by enhanced biopsy and calculation of the prostate volume technique thanks to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) allow a better selection of patients for AS. This management should not be limited to patients under 60years of age, and patients with intermediate-risk PCa should be carefully selected to be included. Biopsies are still required in the follow-up, which can be personalized according to risk patterns. The pathologist must identify the cribriform or intraductal histology on biopsies in order to exclude these patients from AS, in the same way as with patients with alterations in DNA repair genes.

CONCLUSIONS

Controversial indications such as the inclusion of patients from intermediate-risk groups, or the transition to active treatment due to exclusive progression in tumor volume, should be further optimized. It is possible that the future competition of tissue biomarkers, the refinement of objective parameters of mpMRI and the validation of PSA kinetics calculators may sub-stratify risk groups.

Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The approach of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer has evolved in many ways since its introduction 20 years ago. There is a great deal of ongoing research addressing the molecular genetics and clinical outcome of low-risk disease, the use of MRI and biomarkers, and the role of lifestyle and dietary modifications. The major developments in the field are reviewed in this article.

RECENT FINDINGS

Low risk and many cases of low-intermediate risk prostate cancer are indolent, have little or no metastatic potential, and do not pose a threat to the patient in his lifetime. These are termed clinically insignificant. Studies over the last 20 years have advanced our understanding of who these patients are, and promoted the use of conservative management in such individuals. A key component of this approach is the early identification of those patients who have been misattributed as having low-risk disease, who in fact harbor higher risk disease and are likely to benefit from definitive therapy. This represents about 30% of newly diagnosed low-risk patients. A further small proportion of patients with low-risk disease demonstrate biological progression to higher grade disease. Extent of Gleason 6 on biopsy, Prostate Specific Antigen density, and race are predictors for the likelihood of coexistent higher grade cancer.

SUMMARY

The results of active surveillance, embodying conservative management with selective, delayed intervention for the subset who are reclassified as higher risk over time based on repeat biopsy, imaging, or biomarker results, have shown that this approach is safe in the intermediate to long term, with a 0.5-3% cancer-specific mortality at 10-15 years. Further refinement incorporating MRI and targeted biopsies is the subject of intensive research at the moment, and promises to improve the safety and precision of conservative management.

PCA3 as a second-line biomarker in a prospective controlled randomized opportunistic prostate cancer screening programme

OBJECTIVES

PCA3 performance as a single second line biomarker is compared to the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator model 3 (ERSPC RC-3) in an opportunistic screening in prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

5,199 men, aged 40-75y, underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and digital rectal examination (DRE). Men with a normal DRE and PSA ≥3ng/ml had a PCA3 test done. All men with PCA3 ≥35 underwent an initial biopsy (IBx) -12 cores-. Men with PCA3 <35 were randomized 1:1 to either IBx or observation. We compared them to those obtained with ERSPC RC-3.

RESULTS

PCA3 test was performed on 838 men (16.1%). In PCA3(+) and PCA3(-) groups, global PCa detection rates were 40.9% and 14.7% with a median follow-up (FU) of 21.7 months (P<.001). In the PCA3(+) arm (n=301, 35.9%), PCa was identified in 115 men at IBx (38.2%). In the randomized arm, 256 underwent IBx and PCa was found in 46 (18.0%) (P<.001). The biopsy-sparing potential would have been 64.1% as opposed to 76.6% if we had used ERSPC RC-3. However, the estimated false negative cases for HGPCa would have been reduced by 37.1% (89 to 56 patients). Moreover, if we had applied PCA3-35 to avoid IBx, 14.7% PCa and 9.1% of clinical significant PCa patients would not have been diagnosed during this FU.

CONCLUSIONS

When PCA3-35 is used as a second-line biomarker when PSA ≥3ng/ml and DRE is normal, IBx could be avoided in 12.5% less than if ERSPC RC-3 is used and would reduce the false negative cases by 36.2%. At a FU of 21.7 months, this dual protocol would miss 9.1% of clinically significant PCa, so strict FU is mandatory with established biopsy criteria based on PSA and DRE in cases with PCA3 <35.

Clinical performance of transperineal template guided mapping biopsy for therapeutic decision making in low risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the role of Transperineal Template guided Mapping Biopsy (TTMB) in determining the management strategy in patients with low risk prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We retroscpectively evaluated 169 patients who underwent TTMB at our institution from February 2008 to June 2011. Ninety eight of them harbored indolent PCa defined as: Prostate Specific Antigen<10ng/ml, Gleason score 6 or less, clinical stage T2a or less, unilateral disease and a maximum of one third positive cores at first biopsy and<50% of the core involved. TTMB results were analyzed for Gleason score upgrading and upstaging as compared to initial TransRectal UltraSound (TRUS) biopsies and its influence on the change in the treatment decisions.

RESULTS

TTMB detected cancer in 64 (65%) patients. The upgrade, upstage and both were noted in 33% (n=21), 12% (n=8) and 7% (n=5) respectively of the detected cancers. The disease characteristics was similar to initial TRUS in 30 (48%) patients and TTMB was negative in 34 (35%) patients. Prostate volume was significantly smaller in patients with upgrade and/or upstage noted at TTMB (45.4 vs 37.9; P=.03). TTMB results influenced 73.5% of upgraded and/or upstaged patients to receive radical treatment while 81% of the patients with unmodified stage and/or grade continued active surveillance or focal therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with low risk PCa diagnosed by TRUS, subsequent TTMB demonstrated cancer upgrade and/or upstage in about one-third of the patients and resulted in eventual change in treatment decision.

A Preliminary Study of the Ability of the 4Kscore test, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial-Risk Calculator and the European Research Screening Prostate-Risk Calculator for Predicting High-Grade Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

To prevent the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer (PC), therapeutic strategies have been established such as active surveillance and focal therapy, as well as methods for clarifying the diagnosis of high-grade prostate cancer (HGPC) (defined as a Gleason score ≥7), such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and new markers such as the 4Kscore test (4KsT). By means of a pilot study, we aim to test the ability of the 4KsT to identify HGPC in prostate biopsies (Bx) and compare the test with other multivariate prognostic models such as the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 (PCPTRC 2.0) and the European Research Screening Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator 4 (ERSPC-RC 4).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-one patients underwent a prostate Bx according to standard clinical practice, with a minimum of 10 cores. The diagnosis of HGPC was agreed upon by 4 uropathologists. We compared the predictions from the various models by using the Mann-Whitney U test, area under the ROC curve (AUC) (DeLong test), probability density function (PDF), box plots and clinical utility curves.

RESULTS

Forty-three percent of the patients had PC, and 23.5% had HGPC. The medians of probability for the 4KsT, PCPTRC 2.0 and ERSPC-RC 4 were significantly different between the patients with HGPC and those without HGPC (p≤.022) and were more differentiated in the case of 4KsT (51.5% for HGPC [25-75 percentile: 25-80.5%] vs. 16% [P 25-75: 8-26.5%] for non-HGPC; p=.002). All models presented AUCs above 0.7, with no significant differences between any of them and 4KsT (p≥.20). The PDF and box plots showed good discriminative ability, especially in the ERSPC-RC 4 and 4KsT models. The utility curves showed how a cutoff of 9% for 4KsT identified all cases of HGPC and provided a 22% savings in biopsies, which is similar to what occurs with the ERSPC-RC 4 models and a cutoff of 3%.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessed predictive models offer good discriminative ability for HGPCs in Bx. The 4KsT is a good classification model as a whole, followed by ERSPC-RC 4 and PCPTRC 2.0. The clinical utility curves help suggest cutoff points for clinical decisions: 9% for 4KsT and 3% for ERSPC-RC 4. This preliminary study should be interpreted with caution due to its limited sample size.

Perception and satisfaction with the information received during the medical care process in patients with prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To assess the perception and degree of satisfaction of Spanish patients with prostate cancer (PC) concerning the information received during the medical care process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed information on the perception of the medical care process of 591 patients with PC who attended a consultation. We also studied their degree of participation in decision making and the association between perceived satisfaction and the demographic and clinical variables, both of patients and specialists.

RESULTS

Some 90.2% of the patients stated that they had received, mainly from the urologist, an appropriate amount of information about the disease. More than 80% of the patients were satisfied with the information received at the time of diagnosis. Some 70.3% of the patients stated that they better accepted the disease thanks to the information provided, and 60.5% believed that they had a better ability to resolve problems. Some 90.4% of the patients considered that the time provided by the specialist was appropriate. Some 62.5% of the patients participated in making decisions about their disease and treatment. Age (both of the patient and specialist), the extent of the disease, the time dedicated by the specialist and the type of centre were factors that had a significant association (P<.05) with the satisfaction achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

The perception and degree of satisfaction that Spanish patients with PC have of the information received during the medical care process is good and is paralleled by a high degree of active participation in the therapeutic decision making process.

Preliminary results of the Spanish Association of Urology National Registry in Active Surveillance for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To present a National Registry of patients with prostate cancer as monitored through active surveillance, with the intention of testing the hypothesis that cancer-specific mortality in very low-risk and low-risk patients is less than 5% at 15 years.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A multicentre observational study (AEU-PIEM/2014/0001) sponsored by the Spanish Association of Urology was conducted using their platform for multicentre studies. The clinical-pathological inclusion criteria were as follows: cT1a-cT3a, PSA ≤ 20 ng/ml, initial minimum biopsy of 10 cores, number of affected cores ≤ 3, 1st Gleason score of 3 and 2nd Gleason score ≤ 4 and a known prostate volume (in cc). A unified follow-up was not established for all recruiting centres; however, a survey was conducted that reflects the follow-up characteristics based on a number of tangible parameters that allow for their comparison. With the same philosophy of flexibility, the use of certain biomarkers and multiparametric MRI was not considered necessary for inclusion.

RESULTS

We describe the Registry's characteristics and possibilities, as well as the preliminary results from the 324 patients included in its first 5 months of operation in the 15 recruiting centres. We also report the clinical-pathological variables, biomarkers, radiodiagnosis technique and quality-of-life questionnaires considered for the database, as well as the possibilities for indefinite follow-up, remaining open to any active treatment recognized in clinical guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The AEU-PIEM/2014/0001 represents an extremely useful tool for all Spanish urologists for multicentre clinical research. The registry will undoubtedly enable the dissemination of active surveillance of our patients in a more coordinated manner, thus maintaining the advantages of optimised opportunistic screening for prostate cancer without resulting in overtreatment.

Comparison of pathological data between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen in patients with low to very low risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the correlation between pathological data found in radical prostatectomy and previously performed biopsy in patients at low risk prostate cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the characteristics of radical prostatectomies performed in our center from January 2012 to November 2014. The inclusion criteria were patients with low-risk disease (cT1c-T2a, PSA≤10ng/mL and Gleason score≤6). We excluded patients who had fewer than 8 cores in the biopsy, an unspecified number of affected cores, rectal examinations not reported in the medical history or biopsies performed in another center.

RESULTS

Of the 184 patients who underwent prostatectomy during this period, 87 met the inclusion criteria, and 26 of these had<3 affected cores and PSA density≤.15 (very low risk). In the entire sample, the percentage of undergrading (Gleason score≥7) and extracapsular invasion (pT3) was 18.4% (95% CI 10.3-27.6) and 10.35% (95% CI 4.6-17.2), respectively. The percentage of positive margins was 21.8% (95% CI 12.6-29.9). In the very low-risk group, we found no cases of extracapsular invasion and only 1 case of undergrading (Gleason 7 [3+4]), representing 3.8% of the total (95% CI 0-12.5). Predictors of no correlation (stage≥pT3a or undergrading) were the initial risk group, volume, PSA density and affected cores.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate volume, PSA density, the number of affected cores and the patient's initial risk group influence the poor pathological prognosis in the radical prostatectomy specimen (extracapsular invasion and Gleason score≥7).