Quantifying the Transition from Active Surveillance to Watchful Waiting Among Men with Very Low-risk Prostate Cancer

De-escalation of Monitoring in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Results from the GAP3 Consortium

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There is no consensus on de-escalation of monitoring during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa). Our objective was to determine clinical criteria that can be used in decisions to reduce the intensity of AS monitoring.

METHODS

The global prospective AS cohort from the Global Action Plan prostate cancer AS consortium was retrospectively analyzed. The 24656 patients with complete outcome data were considered. The primary goal was to develop a model identifying a subgroup with a high ratio of other-cause mortality (OCM) to PCa-specific mortality (PCSM). Nonparametric competing-risks models were used to estimate cause-specific mortality. We hypothesized that the subgroup with the highest OCM/PCSM ratio would be good candidates for de-escalation of AS monitoring.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Cumulative mortality at 15 yr, accounting for censoring, was 1.3% for PCSM, 11.5% for OCM, and 18.7% for death from unknown causes. We identified body mass index (BMI) >25 kg/m2 and <11% positive cores at initial biopsy as an optimal set of criteria for discriminating OCM from PCSM. The 15-yr OCM/PCSM ratio was 34.2 times higher for patients meeting these criteria than for those not meeting the criteria. According to these criteria, 37% of the cohort would be eligible for de-escalation of monitoring. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the lack of external validation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified BMI >25 kg/m2 and <11% positive cores at initial biopsy as clinical criteria for de-escalation of AS monitoring in PCa.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We investigated factors that could help in deciding on when to reduce the intensity of monitoring for patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. We found that patients with higher BMI (body mass index) and lower prostate cancer volume may be good candidates for less intensive monitoring. This model could help doctors and patients in making decisions on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Long-term Outcomes Among Men Undergoing Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in Sweden

IMPORTANCE

The long-term outcomes among men with prostate cancer (PC) whose disease is managed with active surveillance (AS) remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a simulation model with a 30-year follow-up for men with PC managed with AS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cohort study, a state transition model was created using data from Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden (PCBaSe) on 23 655 men diagnosed with PC and managed with deferred treatment to estimate treatment trajectories. A simulation was performed with 100 000 men in each combination of age at diagnosis, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and PC risk with a follow-up of 30 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Death from PC and death from other causes were estimated, and the proportion of time without active PC treatment was assessed until date of death or age 85 years.

RESULTS

This study included 23 655 men from PCBaSe with a median age at diagnosis of 69 years (IQR, 64-74 years). Of these, 16 177 men underwent active surveillance for PC and 7478 underwent watchful waiting. The proportion of men who were diagnosed at age 55 years and died of PC before age 85 years was 9% for very low-risk PC, 13% for low-risk PC, and 15% for intermediate-risk PC. Among men with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0 who were diagnosed at age 70 years, the corresponding percentages were 3%, 6%, and 7%, respectively. The mean proportion of remaining life-years without active PC treatment for men diagnosed at age 55 years was 12 of 25 years (48%) for very low-risk PC, 9 of 25 years (36%) for low-risk PC, and 7 of 25 (29%) for intermediate-risk PC. For men aged 70 years, the corresponding numbers were 10 of 13 years (77%), 9 of 13 years (66%), and 8 of 13 years (60%), respectively. Men with intermediate-risk PC who were younger than 60 years at diagnosis had a high risk of PC death (12%-15%) and fewer remaining life-years without active PC treatment (29%-33%). In contrast, men with low-risk PC who were older than 65 years at diagnosis had a lower risk of PC death (3%-5%) and more remaining life-years without active PC treatment (62%-77%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this Swedish cohort study suggest that active surveillance may be a safe strategy for disease management among men with PC who were older than 65 years at diagnosis.

Active surveillance protocol in prostate cancer in Portugal

OBJECTIVE

To examine clinical practice patterns in locally managing patients under an active surveillance protocol among Portuguese urologists.

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogeneous disease with many prostate adenocarcinomas being indolent and a low probability of ever causing symptoms or death. Active surveillance (AS) is a form of conservative management aimed to reduce over-treatment for low-risk PCa patients. Over the years, experience with AS has grown considerably and is now standard in some countries, however a universal protocol still does not exist.

METHODS

Nationwide anonymous e-survey concerning habits and practices on AS among Portuguese urologists, that consisted of twelve questions and was sent electronically to all 368 current members of the Portuguese Urological Association.

RESULTS

56 urologists were surveyed (15.21% answer rate), evenly distributed geographically and allocated according to years of experience as well as number of PCa patients managed monthly. The vast majority of respondents recommends AS to their patients, particularly ISUP grade 1 patients, whose PSA serum level is bellow 20 ng/mL. Observance of AS programs by patients was not in question but concerns exist over psychological morbidity while harboring disease. Majority believed that international guidelines surveillance protocols were adequate and sufficient, but there are some constraints concerning availability of periodic MRIs and re-biopsy needs.

CONCLUSIONS

AS seems to be sustained in urologist clinical practice, although patients still lag to adhere and choose for active treatment. AS may not be an easy choice for patients and clinicians due to uncertainty of disease progression, risk of loss to follow-up and repeated biopsies but is also a cause for anxiety, depression, uncertainty and a perception of danger.

No significant difference in intermediate key outcomes in men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed by active surveillance

Active surveillance (AS) is standard of care for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), but its feasibility in intermediate-risk patients is controversial. We compared outcomes of low- and intermediate-risk patients managed with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-supported AS in a community hospital. Of the 433 patients enrolled in AS between 2009 and 2016, 358 complied with AS inclusion criteria (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score ≤ 5, Gleason grade group (GGG) ≤ 2, clinical stage ≤ cT2 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 20 ng/ml) and discontinuation criteria (histological-, PSA-, clinical- or radiological disease reclassification). Of the 358 patients, 177 (49%) were low-risk and 181 (51%) were intermediate-risk. Median follow-up was 4.2 years. The estimated 5-year treatment-free survival (TFS) was 56% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51-62%). Intermediate-risk patients had significantly shorter TFS compared with low-risk patients (hazard ratio 2.01, 95% CI 1.47-2.76, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the rate of adverse pathology, biochemical recurrence-free survival and overall survival between low- and intermediate-risk patients. Two patients developed metastatic disease and three died of PCa. These results suggest that selected patients with intermediate-risk PCa may be safely managed by mpMRI-supported AS, but longer follow-up is necessary.

Factors that influence clinicians' decisions to decrease active surveillance monitoring frequency or transition to watchful waiting for localised prostate cancer: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about clinicians' decision-making about decreasing active surveillance (AS) testing/converting patients to watchful waiting (WW), nor are there any guidelines. The objective of this study was to identify factors that clinicians consider when decreasing AS testing/converting to WW for men with prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Exploratory qualitative study.

SETTING

All participants practiced in various institutions in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible clinicians had to provide clinical care for patients with prostate cancer in the USA and speak English. Clinicians could be either urologists or radiation oncologists. Of the 24 clinicians, 83% were urologists representing 11 states, 92% were men and 62% were white.

METHODS

This qualitative study used data from semi-structured interviews. Purposive sampling was used to ensure geographical variation in the USA. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was achieved. Framework analysis guided coding and identification of themes. Two researchers coded all transcripts independently, met to discuss and reached consensus.

RESULTS

Interviews with clinicians demonstrated that testing or monitoring for AS or transitioning to WW is happening in practice, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Decisions to decrease AS were personalised and tailored to patients' health status. Life expectancy was the dominant factor that influenced decision, but clinicians were generally hesitant to specify an age when they would decrease AS or transition to WW. Fear that poor adherence could lead to missed progression and concerns about the medico-legal issue of not doing enough were cited as barriers to decreasing AS.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that in certain situations, AS frequency is reduced or transitioned to WW, yet decisions appear to be inconsistent and there are no significant barriers. These findings could inform further areas to explore when drafting recommendations that consider patients' values and preferences when making decisions about decreasing AS/converting to WW.

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.

Long-term outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in a community-based setting: results from a prospective non-interventional study

Purpose

To report on long-term outcomes of patients treated with active surveillance (AS) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) in the daily routine setting.

Methods

HAROW (2008–2013) was a non-interventional, health service research study about the management of localized PCa in the community setting, with 86% of the study centers being office-based urologists. A follow-up examination of all patients who opted for AS as primary treatment was carried out. Overall, cancer-specific, and metastasis-free survival, as well as discontinuation rates, were determined.

Results

Of 329 patients, 62.9% had very-low- and 21.3% low-risk tumours. The median follow-up was 7.7 years (IQR 4.7–9.1). Twenty-eight patients (8.5%) died unrelated to PCa, of whom 19 were under AS or watchful waiting (WW). Additionally, seven patients (2.1%) developed metastasis. The estimated 10-year overall and metastasis-free survival was 86% (95% CI 81.7–90.3) and 97% (95% CI 94.6–99.3), respectively. One hundred eighty-seven patients (56.8%) discontinued AS changing to invasive treatment: 104 radical prostatectomies (RP), 55 radiotherapies (RT), and 28 hormonal treatments (HT). Another 50 patients switched to WW. Finally, 37.4% remained alive without invasive therapy (22.2% AS and 15.2% WW). Intervention-free survival differed between the risk groups: 47.8% in the very-low-, 33.8% in the low- and 34.6% in the intermediate-/high-risk-group (p = 0.008). On multivariable analysis, PSA-density ≥ 0.2 ng/ml² was significantly predictive for receiving invasive treatment (HR 2.55; p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Even in routine care, AS can be considered a safe treatment option. Our results might encourage office-based urologists regarding the implementation of AS and to counteract possible concerns against this treatment option.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00345-020-03471-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Noninvasive treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer in elderly patients-results of the HAROW study]

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive treatment options such as active surveillance (AS), watchful waiting (WW), and hormone deprivation therapy (HT) are particularly important in elderly patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa).

OBJECTIVES

We examine the use of these noninvasive treatment options in the everyday care in a cohort of patients ≥70 years old.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the HAROW study, the treatment of localized PCa under everyday conditions is investigated. The only inclusion criterion was newly diagnosed organ-confined PCa (≤cT2c). In AS, WW, and HT patients, we compared initial tumor and patient characteristics, follow-up examinations and changes of therapy.

RESULTS

Of 457 patients ≥70 years, 210 chose AS, 160 HT, and 87 WW. Observation times were 6.3 years (AS), 7.5 years (HT), and 7.0 years (WW). AS patients (73.2 years) were younger than WW (76.0 years) and HT patients (76.9 years) and had a higher proportion of low-risk tumors (80%) versus WW (31%) and HT (19%). A change of therapy was observed in 47.1% of AS, 17.2% of WW and 13.1% of HT patients. Metastasis occurred in 1.0% of AS, 4.6% of WW, and 6.9% of HT patients. Overall survival was 94.3% for AS, 90.8% for WW and 81.9% for HT. Within the first 28.4 months, the mean number of PSA determinations did not differ between AS and WW (6.1 vs. 5.2; p = 0.09); a rebiopsy was performed in 37.6% of AS, 11.4% of WW, and 17% of HT patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The allocation to curative and palliative strategies should be made according to patient and tumor characteristics by definition. Palliative procedures may represent concepts in older patients who initially chose a curative AS strategy.

When and How Should Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer be De-Escalated?

Despite widespread adoption of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer, less is known about how or when monitoring should be deintensified. We performed a narrative review of the available evidence and guidelines addressing transitions from active to passive monitoring, including watchful waiting. Increasing age and comorbidity limit quality-adjusted life years gained from curative intervention, although no universal thresholds exist to denote a transition from active monitoring. Despite observational studies indicating that AS intensity decreases over time, the risk of distant progression also increases with age, suggesting an opportunity to improve decision support that incorporates multiple factors when navigating these decisions. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the available evidence surrounding transitioning from active monitoring to observation. Clinical practice guidelines and research studies support decreasing intensity based on an appreciation of age, other medical problems, and patient preferences.

Intensity of Active Surveillance and Transition to Treatment in Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly utilized for low-risk prostate cancers, to delay or avoid treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To (1) describe uptake and surveillance intensity of real-world use of AS and compare with national guidelines, and (2) describe transitions from conservative to curative treatment by different indications of disease progression.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A population-based cohort study of men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer, in Stockholm County, Sweden, during 2008-2017. Follow-up was up to 10yr, with a median of 3.5yr.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and biopsies. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios of starting curative treatment.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 6021 men with low-risk prostate cancer were included in the analysis; 3116 (52%) had AS recorded as the intended primary management (AS cohort). During 1, 2, and 3yr after diagnosis, the frequencies of at least one PSA test were 90%, 92%, and 88%, respectively, and those of postdiagnostic surveillance biopsies were 42%, 19% and 18%, respectively. During surveillance, 13% of men in the AS cohort were upgraded on rebiopsy, with Gleason upgrading being the strongest factor for starting curative treatment. One limitation is the generalizability to other populations because of differences between surveillance protocols and clinical settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that AS is underutilized and that monitoring differs from current guidelines. Optimization of AS protocols is important in order to increase adherence and avoid overtreatment.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Active surveillance has the potential to reduce overtreatment and avoid treatment-related side effects. Our results show that few men receive the recommended monitoring.

How to measure temporal changes in care pathways for chronic diseases using health care registry data

BACKGROUND

Disease trajectories for chronic diseases can span over several decades, with several time-dependent factors affecting treatment decisions. Thus, there is a need for long-term predictions of disease trajectories to inform patients and healthcare professionals on the long-term outcomes and provide information on the need of future health care. Here, we propose a state transition model to describe and predict disease trajectories up to 25 years after diagnosis in men with prostate cancer (PCa), as a proof of principle.

METHODS

States, state transitions, and transition probabilities were identified and estimated in Prostate Cancer data Base of Sweden (PCBaSe^Traject), using nationwide population-based data from 118,743 men diagnosed with PCa. A state transition model in discrete time steps (i.e., 4 weeks) was developed and applied to capture all possible transitions (PCBaSe^Sim). Transition probabilities were estimated for changes in both treatment and comorbidity. These models combined yielded parameter estimates to run an individual-level simulation based on the state-transition model to obtain prediction estimates. Predicted estimates were then compared to real world data in PCBaSe^Traject.

RESULTS

PCBaSe^Sim estimates for the cumulative incidence of first and second transitions, death from PCa and death from other causes were compared to observed transitions in PCBaSe^Traject. A good agreement was found between simulated and observed estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a reliable and accurate simulation tool, PCBaSe^Sim that provides information on disease trajectories for subjects with a chronic disease on an individual and population-based level.

Clinical and pathologic factors predicting reclassification in active surveillance cohorts

The incidence of small, lower risk well-differentiated prostate cancer is increasing and almost half of the patients with this diagnosis are candidates for initial conservative management in an attempt to avoid overtreatment and morbidity associated with surgery or radiation. A proportion of patients labeled as low risk, candidates for Active Surveillance (AS), harbor aggressive disease and would benefit from definitive treatment. The focus of this review is to identify clinicopathologic features that may help identify these less optimal AS candidates. A systematic Medline/PubMed Review was performed in January 2017 according to PRISMA guidelines; 83 articles were selected for full text review according to their relevance and after applying limits described. For patients meeting AS criteria including Gleason Score 6, several factors can assist in predicting those patients that are at higher risk for reclassification including higher PSA density, bilateral cancer, African American race, small prostate volume and low testosterone. Nomograms combining these features improve risk stratification. Clinical and pathologic features provide a significant amount of information for risk stratification (>70%) for patients considering active surveillance. Higher risk patient subgroups can benefit from further evaluation or consideration of treatment. Recommendations will continue to evolve as data from longer term AS cohorts matures.

Prostate Biopsy in Active Surveillance Protocols: Immediate Re-biopsy and Timing of Subsequent Biopsies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This manuscript reviews contemporary literature regarding prostate cancer active surveillance (AS) protocols as well as other tools that may guide the management of biopsy frequency and assess the possibility of progression in low-risk prostate cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is no consensus regarding the timing of surveillance biopsies; however, an immediate repeat biopsy within 12 months of diagnosis for patients considering AS confirms patients who have favorable risk disease yet also identifies patients who were undersampled initially. Studies regarding multiparametric MRI, nomograms, and biomarkers show promise in risk stratifying and counseling patients during AS. Further studies are needed to determine if these supplemental tests can decrease the frequency of surveillance biopsies. An immediate re-biopsy can help to reduce the risk of missing clinically significant disease. Other clinical tools, including mpMRI, exist that can be used as an adjunct to counsel patients and guide a personalized discussion regarding the frequency of surveillance biopsies.