Defining the optimal treatment strategy for localized prostate cancer patients: a survey of ongoing studies at the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group

The Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer in Everyday Practice in Germany

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is now often diagnosed in the localized, welldifferentiated stage. In the HAROW study, we investigated the care situation with respect to the various treatment options for localized prostate cancer in everyday clinical practice in Germany.

METHODS

Study physicians for this prospective, multicenter observational study were recruited through the Federation of German Urologists. At six-month intervals, clinical variables were recorded (T category, prostate-specific antigen [PSA], Gleason score, d'Amico risk profile, Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]) and patients filled out questionnaires (QLQ-C30) regarding their indicationrelated quality of life (QoL). Covariance analysis was used to adjust for the variable distribution of patient features among the treatment groups.

RESULTS

Data from 2957 patients were available for analysis. The mean followup time was 28.4 months overall, and 47.6 months in the active surveillance (AS) group. Younger patients and patients with a CCI of 0 or 1 predominated in the AS and surgery groups; older patients and patients with a CCI of 2 or above predominated in the groups in which palliative treatment strategies such as hormone therapy (HT) and watchful waiting were applied. The HT group had the highest percentage of patients with a Gleason score of 8 or above (21.2%), while the AS group had the highest percentage of patients with a Gleason score of 6 or below (92.5%), as well as the lowest mean PSA value (5.8 ± 3.4 ng/mL) and the highest percentage of patients with a low-risk profile (82.5%). Of 468 patients in the AS group, 170 (36.3%) underwent a change of treatment strategy. After adjustment for the severity of disease, no significant difference with respect to the global quality of life was found between AS and the curative treatment options over the long term.

CONCLUSION

The study physicians drew a clear distinction between curative and palliative treatment strategies, and the inclusion criteria for AS were largely respected. The observed preference for surgery in low-risk patients indicates overtreatment in this patient group.

Development, validation and evaluation of an instrument for active monitoring of men with clinically localised prostate cancer: systematic review, cohort studies and qualitative study

Background

Active surveillance [(AS), sometimes called active monitoring (AM)],is a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended management option for men with clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). It aims to target radical treatment only to those who would benefit most. Little consensus exists nationally or internationally about safe and effective protocols for AM/AS or triggers that indicate if or when men should move to radical treatment.

Objective

The aims of this project were to review how prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been used in AM/AS programmes; to develop and test the validity of a new model for predicting future PSA levels; to develop an instrument, based on PSA, that would be acceptable and effective for men and clinicians to use in clinical practice; and to design a robust study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the instrument.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to investigate how PSA is currently used to monitor men in worldwide AM/AS studies. A model for PSA change with age was developed using Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) data and validated using data from two PSA-era cohorts and two pre-PSA-era cohorts. The model was used to derive 95% PSA reference ranges (PSARRs) across ages. These reference ranges were used to predict the onset of metastases or death from PCa in one of the pre-PSA-era cohorts. PSARRs were incorporated into an active monitoring system (AMS) and demonstrated to 18 clinicians and 20 men with PCa from four NHS trusts. Qualitative interviews investigated patients’ and clinicians’ views about current AM/AS protocols and the acceptability of the AMS within current practice.

Results

The systematic review found that the most commonly used triggers for clinical review of PCa were PSA doubling time (PSADT) < 3 years or PSA velocity (PSAv) > 1 ng/ml/year. The model for PSA change (developed using ProtecT study data) predicted PSA values in AM/AS cohorts within 2 ng/ml of observed PSA in up to 79% of men. Comparing the three PSA markers, there was no clear optimal approach to alerting men to worsening cancer. The PSARR and PSADT markers improved the modelc-statistic for predicting death from PCa by 0.11 (21%) and 0.13 (25%), respectively, compared with using diagnostic information alone [PSA, age, tumour stage (T-stage)]. Interviews revealed variation in clinical practice regarding eligibility and follow-up protocols. Patients and clinicians perceive current AM/AS practice to be framed by uncertainty, ranging from uncertainty about selection of eligible AM/AS candidates to uncertainty about optimum follow-up protocols and thresholds for clinical review/radical treatment. Patients and clinicians generally responded positively to the AMS. The impact of the AMS on clinicians’ decision-making was limited by a lack of data linking AMS values to long-term outcomes and by current clinical practice, which viewed PSA measures as one of several tools guiding clinical decisions in AM/AS. Patients reported that they would look to clinicians, rather than to a tool, to direct decision-making.

Limitations

The quantitative findings were severely hampered by a lack of clinical outcomes or events (such as metastases). The qualitative findings were limited through reliance on participants’ reports of practices and recollections of events rather than observations of actual interactions.

Conclusions

Patients and clinicians found that the instrument provided additional, potentially helpful, information but were uncertain about the current usefulness of the risk model we developed for routine management. Comparison of the model with other monitoring strategies will require clinical outcomes from ongoing AM/AS studies.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

[Active surveillance for localized prostate cancer]

Active surveillance as an alternative approach to immediate curative treatment is demonstrated for an increasing number of patients with low risk prostate cancer. Optimization of selection and surveillance criteria to guarantee a low risk issue to patients are discussed in this review. They lead to consider active surveillance as an option rather than a standard of care for patients ideally included in clinical research protocols.

Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study: design of a multi-institutional active surveillance cohort and biorepository

Active surveillance is a management plan for localized prostate cancer that offers selective delayed intervention on indication of disease progression, allowing patients to delay or avoid treatment and associated side-effects. Outcomes from centers that promote active surveillance are favorable, with high rates of disease-specific survival. However, there remains a need for prognostic variables or biomarkers that distinguish with high specificity the aggressive cancers that progress on surveillance from the indolent cancers. The Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study is a multicenter study and a biorepository that will discover and confirm biomarkers of aggressive disease as defined by histologic, prostate-specific antigen, or clinical criteria.