Three-year Active Surveillance Outcomes in a Contemporary Community Urology Cohort in the United States

Medium-term follow up of active surveillance for early prostate cancer at a non-academic institution

OBJECTIVES

To report oncological outcomes of active surveillance (AS) at a single non-academic institution adopting the standardised Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Competing risk analyses estimated the incidence of overall mortality, metastases, conversion to treatment, and grade reclassification. The incidence of reclassification and adverse pathological findings at radical prostatectomy were compared between patients fulfilling all PRIAS inclusion criteria vs those not fulfilling at least one.

RESULTS

We analysed 341 men with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer (PCa) followed on AS between 2010 and 2022. There were no PCa deaths, two patients developed distant metastases and were alive at the end of the study period. The 10-year cumulative incidence of metastases was 1.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-6.4%). A total of 111 men were reclassified, and 127 underwent definitive treatment. Men not fulfilling at least one PRIAS inclusion criteria (n = 43) had a higher incidence of reclassification (subdistribution hazards ratio 1.73, 95% CI 1.07-2.81; P = 0.03), but similar rates of adverse pathological findings at radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSION

Metastases in men on AS at a non-academic institution are as rare as those reported in established international cohorts. Men followed without stringent inclusion criteria should be counselled about the higher incidence of reclassification and reassured they can expect rates of adverse pathological findings comparable to those fulfilling all criteria. Therefore, AS should be proposed to all men with low-grade PCa regardless of whether they are followed at academic institutions or smaller community hospitals.

Comparison of Outcomes of Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Versus Low-Risk Localised Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Currently, there is no clear consensus regarding the role of active surveillance (AS) in the management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) patients. We aim to analyse data from the available literature on the outcomes of AS in the management of IRPC patients and compare them with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) patients. A comprehensive literature search was performed, and relevant data were extracted. Our primary outcome was treatment-free survival, and secondary outcomes were metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. The DerSimonian–Laird random-effects method was used for the meta-analysis. Out of 712 studies identified following an initial search, 25 studies were included in the systematic review. We found that both IRPC and LRPC patients had nearly similar 5, 10, and 15 year treatment-free survival rate, 5 and 10 year metastasis-free survival rate, and 5 year overall survival rate. However, cancer-specific survival rates at 5, 10, and 15 years were significantly lower in IRPC compared to LRPC group. Furthermore, IRPC patients had significantly inferior long-term overall survival rate (10 and 15 year) and metastasis-free survival rate (15 year) compared to LRPC patients. Both the clinicians and the patients can consider this information during the informed decision-making process before choosing AS.

Active Surveillance for Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Metaregression

CONTEXT

Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly selected among patients with localized, intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa). However, the safety and optimal candidate selection for those with IR PCa remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate treatment-free survival and oncologic outcomes in patients with IR PCa managed with AS and to compare with AS outcomes in low-risk (LR) PCa patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was conducted through February 2022 using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. The coprimary outcomes were treatment-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival. A subgroup analysis was planned a priori to explore AS outcomes when limiting inclusion to IR patients with a Gleason grade (GG) of ≤2.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 25 studies including 29 673 unselected IR patients met our inclusion criteria. The 10-yr treatment-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival ranged from 19.4% to 69%, 80.8% to 99%, 88.2% to 99%, and 59.4% to 83.9%, respectively. IR patients had similar treatment-free survival to LR patients (risk ratio [RR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.99-1.36, p = 0.07), but significantly higher risks of metastasis (RR 5.79, 95% CI, 4.61-7.29, p < 0.001), death from PCa (RR 3.93, 95% CI, 2.93-5.27, p < 0.001), and all-cause death (RR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.11-1.86, p = 0.005). In a subgroup analysis of studies including patients with GG ≤2 only (n = 4), treatment-free survival (RR 1.03, 95% CI, 0.62-1.71, p = 0.91) and metastasis-free survival (RR 2.09, 95% CI, 0.75-5.82, p = 0.16) were similar between LR and IR patients. Treatment-free survival was significantly reduced in subgroups of patients with unfavorable IR disease and increased cancer length on biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis highlight the need to optimize patient selection for those with IR features. Our findings support limiting the inclusion of IR patients in AS to those with low-volume GG 2 tumor.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Active surveillance is increasingly used in patients with localized, intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer. In this population, we have reported higher risks of metastasis and cancer mortality in unselected patients than in patients with low-risk features, underscoring the need to optimize the selection of patients with IR features.

Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Current Data

Simple Summary

AS is an option for the initial management of selected patients with intermediate-risk PC. The proper way to predict which men will have an aggressive clinical course or indolent PC who would benefit from AS has not been unveiled. Genetics and MRI can help in the decision-making, but it remains unclear which men would benefit from which tests. In addition, there are several differences between AS protocols in inclusion criteria, monitoring follow-up, and triggers for active treatment. Large series and a few RCTs are under investigation, and more research is needed to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with intermediate-risk PC. This study summarizes the current data on patients with intermediate-risk PC under AS, recent findings, and discusses future directions.

Abstract

Active surveillance (AS) is a monitoring strategy to avoid or defer curative treatment, minimizing the side effects of radiotherapy and prostatectomy without compromising survival. AS in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC) has increasingly become used. There is heterogeneity in intermediate-risk PC patients. Some of them have an aggressive clinical course and require active treatment, while others have indolent disease and may benefit from AS. However, intermediate-risk patients have an increased risk of metastasis, and the proper way to select the best candidates for AS is unknown. In addition, there are several differences between AS protocols in inclusion criteria, monitoring follow-up, and triggers for active treatment. A few large series and randomized trials are under investigation. Therefore, more research is needed to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with intermediate-risk disease. This study summarizes the current data on patients with intermediate-risk PC under AS, recent findings, and discusses future directions.

Progression on active surveillance for prostate cancer in Black men: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several studies evaluated prostate cancer (PCa) outcomes in Black men on active surveillance (AS); most studies contained few Black men and results were conflicting. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyze of race and outcomes on AS.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed for articles of men with Grade Group 1 or 2 (GG1 or GG2) PCa on AS. All studies required race-specific comparative progression data. Progression to treatment, PSA, or biopsy progression were considered and relative risk (RR) estimates of Black men progressing were extracted and pooled using random-effects models. Differences by study-level characteristics were evaluated using subgroup and a cumulative meta-analysis by time.

RESULTS

In total, 12 studies were included (3137 Black and 12,206 non-Black men); eight prospective (27%, n = 4210) and four retrospectives (73%, n = 11,133) cohorts. The overall RR of progression for Black men was 1.62 (95%CI, 1.21-2.17), I² = 64% (95% CI, 32-80%), (χ² = 30.23; P = 0.001; τ² = 0.16). Black men with GG1 PCa alone had a higher pooled progression: RR = 1.81 (95% CI, 1.23-2.68). Including only studies with clinical progression (excluding progression to treatment), potentiated results: RR = 1.82 (95%CI, 1.27-2.60). However, a cumulative meta-analysis demonstrated decreasing pooled effect over time, with contemporary studies after 2019 showing a tempered effect (RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.20-1.39).

CONCLUSIONS

Many studies attribute racial disparity in PCa to delayed presentation of disease, however, AS is unique since all AS eligible men have a low grade and stage PCa. Our findings suggest Black men may have an increased risk of progression during AS, but the association is not so strong that Black men should be discouraged from undergoing AS. Indeed, contemporary evidence suggests stricter inclusion, better confirmatory testing or better access to care may temper these findings. Importantly, these results utilize self-reported race, a social construct that has many limitations.

DNA damage repair gene mutation testing and genetic counseling in men with/without prostate cancer: a systematic review

Background: Ongoing clinical trials are investigating PARP inhibitors to target the DNA damage repair (DDR) pathway in prostate cancer. DDR mutation screening will guide treatment strategy and assess eligibility for clinical trials. Materials & methods: This systematic review estimated the rate of DDR mutation testing or genetic counseling among men with or at risk of prostate cancer. Results: From 6856 records, one study fulfilled the inclusion criteria and described men undiagnosed with prostate cancer with a family history of BRCA1/2 mutation who received DDR mutation testing. Conclusion: With only one study included in this first systematic review of DDR mutation testing or genetic counseling in men with or at risk of prostate cancer, more research is warranted.

Active surveillance before radiotherapy: Outcome and predictive factors for multiple biopsies before treatment

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to investigate whether patients on active surveillance (AS) had worse outcomes than patients who received immediate treatment with radiotherapy and whether a Gleason grade progression on repeat biopsy influenced outcome.

METHODS

From our institutional database, we identified 2001 patients treated between 2005 and 2019 with primary external beam radiation therapy or brachytherapy. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was analyzed in relation to clinical factors such as a Gleason grade progression or having multiple biopsies vs. only one biopsy. Patients on AS were identified as those who had undergone ≥2 biopsies. We used log-rank tests for univariate analysis (UVA) and Cox regression analysis for multivariable analysis (MVA).

RESULTS

Of 2001 patients, 374 (19%) patients had ≥2 biopsies before treatment, of which 48% presented with a Gleason grade progression of mostly to Gleason 3+4 (36%); 32% had a cancer volume increase on biopsy and 16% had no significant change on biopsy. For patients with ≥2 biopsies, median time from first biopsy to treatment was 22.0 months (interquartile range [IQR] 14.7-36.1). By UVA, patients with Gleason grade progression (n=105) had a worse BCR-free rate (p=0.02) than patients who had no grade progression on repeat biopsy or only one biopsy. On MVA, this effect was lost. Having ≥2 biopsies was not a significant negative prognostic factor on UVA (p=0.2) or MVA.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, radiotherapy after a period of AS, even with Gleason grade progression, did not lead to worse outcomes compared to patients who had radiotherapy after only one biopsy.

Active Surveillance for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Current Protocols and Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines allow active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients but do not provide comprehensive recommendations for selection. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes for active surveillance in intermediate- and low-risk groups.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance using 3 literature search engines (Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus) over the past 10 years. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who remain under surveillance. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and metastasis-free survival. For articles including both low- and intermediate-risk patients undergoing active surveillance, comparisons between the two groups were made.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients who remained on active surveillance was comparable between the low- and intermediate-risk groups after 10 and 15 years' follow-up (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.14; and OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.65-1.13). Cancer-specific survival was worse in the intermediate-risk group after 10 years (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31-0.69) and 15 years (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.2-0.58). The overall survival rate showed no statistical difference at 5 years' follow-up (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.45-1.57) but was worse in the intermediate-risk group after 10 years (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.35-0.53). Metastases-free survival did not significantly differ after 5 years (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.2-1.53) and was worse in the intermediate-risk group after 10 years (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28-0.77).

CONCLUSION

Active surveillance could be offered to patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. However, they should be informed of the need for regular monitoring and the possibility of discontinuation as a result of a higher rate of progression. Available data indicate that 5-year survival rates between intermediate- and low-risk patients do not differ; 10-year survival rates are worse. To assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of active surveillance, it is necessary to develop unified algorithms for patient selection and management, and to prospectively conduct studies with long-term surveillance.