Metastasis and Mortality in Men With Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance

Identification of Genes with Rare Loss of Function Variants Associated with Aggressive Prostate Cancer and Survival

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PrCa) is a substantial cause of mortality among men globally. Rare germline mutations in BRCA2 have been validated robustly as increasing risk of aggressive forms with a poorer prognosis; however, evidence remains less definitive for other genes.

OBJECTIVE

To detect genes associated with PrCa aggressiveness, through a pooled analysis of rare variant sequencing data from six previously reported studies in the UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study (UKGPCS).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We accumulated a cohort of 6805 PrCa cases, in which a set of ten candidate genes had been sequenced in all samples.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We examined the association between rare putative loss of function (pLOF) variants in each gene and aggressive classification (defined as any of death from PrCa, metastatic disease, stage T4, or both stage T3 and Gleason score ≥8). Secondary analyses examined staging phenotypes individually. Cox proportional hazards modelling and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to further examine the relationship between mutation status and survival.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

We observed associations between PrCa aggressiveness and pLOF mutations in ATM, BRCA2, MSH2, and NBN (odds ratio = 2.67-18.9). These four genes and MLH1 were additionally associated with one or more secondary analysis phenotype. Carriers of germline mutations in these genes experienced shorter PrCa-specific survival (hazard ratio = 2.15, 95% confidence interval 1.79-2.59, p = 4 × 10-16) than noncarriers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides further support that rare pLOF variants in specific genes are likely to increase aggressive PrCa risk and may help define the panel of informative genes for screening and treatment considerations.

PATIENT SUMMARY

By combining data from several previous studies, we have been able to enhance knowledge regarding genes in which inherited mutations would be expected to increase the risk of more aggressive PrCa. This may, in the future, aid in the identification of men at an elevated risk of dying from PrCa.

Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy and Inter-reader Agreement of the Prostate Imaging After Focal Ablation Scoring System

Background and objective

Focal therapy (FT) is increasingly recognized as a promising approach for managing localized prostate cancer (PCa), notably reducing treatment-related morbidities. However, post-treatment anatomical changes present significant challenges for surveillance using current imaging techniques. This study aimed to evaluate the inter-reader agreement and efficacy of the Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) scoring system in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on post-FT multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving patients who underwent primary FT for localized csPCa between 2013 and 2023, followed by post-FT mpMRI and a prostate biopsy. Two expert genitourinary radiologists retrospectively evaluated post-FT mpMRI using PI-FAB. The key measures included inter-reader agreement of PI-FAB scores, assessed by quadratic weighted Cohen's kappa (κ), and the system's efficacy in predicting in-field recurrence of csPCa, with a PI-FAB score cutoff of 3. Additional diagnostic metrics including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy were also evaluated.

Key findings and limitations

Scans from 38 patients were analyzed, revealing a moderate level of agreement in PI-FAB scoring (κ = 0.56). Both radiologists achieved sensitivity of 93% in detecting csPCa, although specificity, PPVs, NPVs, and accuracy varied.

Conclusions and clinical implications

The PI-FAB scoring system exhibited high sensitivity with moderate inter-reader agreement in detecting in-field recurrence of csPCa. Despite promising results, its low specificity and PPV necessitate further refinement. These findings underscore the need for larger studies to validate the clinical utility of PI-FAB, potentially aiding in standardizing post-treatment surveillance.

Patient summary

Focal therapy has emerged as a promising approach for managing localized prostate cancer, but limitations in current imaging techniques present significant challenges for post-treatment surveillance. The Prostate Imaging after Focal Ablation (PI-FAB) scoring system showed high sensitivity for detecting in-field recurrence of clinically significant prostate cancer. However, its low specificity and positive predictive value necessitate further refinement. Larger, more comprehensive studies are needed to fully validate its clinical utility.

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.

Prognostic Value of the Intermediate-risk Feature in Men with Favorable Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: Implications for Active Surveillance

Background

Guidelines suggest that active surveillance (AS) may be considered for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk (fIR) prostate cancer.

Objective

To compare the outcomes between fIR prostate cancer patients included by Gleason score (GS) or prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Most patients are classified with fIR disease due to either a 3 + 4 = 7 GS (fIR-GS) or a PSA level of 10-20 ng/ml (fIR-PSA). Previous research suggests that inclusion by GS 7 may be associated with worse outcomes.

Design setting and participants

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of US veterans diagnosed with fIR prostate cancer from 2001 to 2015.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We compared the incidence of metastatic disease, prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), all-cause mortality (ACM), and receipt of definitive treatment between fIR-PSA and fIR-GS patients managed with AS. Outcomes were compared with those of a previously published cohort of patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease using cumulative incidence function and Gray's test for statistical significance.

Results and limitations

The cohort included 663 men; 404 had fIR-GS (61%) and 249 fIR-PSA (39%). There was no evidence of difference in the incidence of metastatic disease (8.6% vs 5.8%, p = 0.77), receipt of definitive treatment (77.6% vs 81.5%, p = 0.43), PCSM (5.7% vs 2.5%, p = 0.274), and ACM (16.8% vs 19.1%, p = 0.14) between the fIR-PSA and fIR-GS groups at 10 yr. On multivariate regression, unfavorable intermediate-risk disease was associated with higher rates of metastatic disease, PCSM, and ACM. Limitations included varying surveillance protocols.

Conclusions

There is no evidence of difference in oncological and survival outcomes between men with fIR-PSA and fIR-GS prostate cancer undergoing AS. Thus, presence of GS 7 disease alone should not exclude patients from consideration of AS. Shared decision-making should be utilized to optimize management for each patient.

Patient summary

In this report, we compared the outcomes of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the Veterans Health Administration. We found no significant difference between survival and oncological outcomes.

Expanding inclusion criteria for active surveillance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a machine learning approach

PURPOSE

To develop new selection criteria for active surveillance (AS) in intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients.

METHODS

Retrospective study including patients from 14 referral centers who underwent pre-biopsy mpMRI, image-guided biopsies and radical prostatectomy. The cohort included biopsy-naive IR PCa patients who met the following inclusion criteria: Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 1-2, PSA < 20 ng/mL, and cT1-cT2 tumors. We relied on a recursive machine learning partitioning algorithm developed to predict adverse pathological features (i.e., ≥ pT3a and/or pN + and/or GGG ≥ 3).

RESULTS

A total of 594 patients with IR PCa were included, of whom 220 (37%) had adverse features. PI-RADS score (weight:0.726), PSA density (weight:0.158), and clinical T stage (weight:0.116) were selected as the most informative risk factors to classify patients according to their risk of adverse features, leading to the creation of five risk clusters. The adverse feature rates for cluster #1 (PI-RADS ≤ 3 and PSA density < 0.15), cluster #2 (PI-RADS 4 and PSA density < 0.15), cluster #3 (PI-RADS 1-4 and PSA density ≥ 0.15), cluster #4 (normal DRE and PI-RADS 5), and cluster #5 (abnormal DRE and PI-RADS 5) were 11.8, 27.9, 37.3, 42.7, and 65.1%, respectively. Compared with the current inclusion criteria, extending the AS criteria to clusters #1 + #2 or #1 + #2 + #3 would increase the number of eligible patients (+ 60 and + 253%, respectively) without increasing the risk of adverse pathological features.

CONCLUSIONS

The newly developed model has the potential to expand the number of patients eligible for AS without compromising oncologic outcomes. Prospective validation is warranted.

Prospective Implementation and Early Outcomes of a Risk-stratified Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Follow-up Protocol

Background

Active surveillance (AS) is a major management option for men with early prostate cancer. Current guidelines however advocate identical AS follow-up for all without considering different disease trajectories. We previously proposed a pragmatic three-tier STRATified CANcer Surveillance (STRATCANS) follow-up strategy based on different progression risks from clinic-pathological and imaging features.

Objective

To report early outcomes from the implementation of the STRATCANS protocol in our centre.

Design setting and participants

Men on AS were enrolled into a prospective stratified follow-up programme.

Intervention

Three tiers of increasing follow-up intensity based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) 1 or 2, prostate-specific antigen density, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Likert score at entry.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Rates of progression to CPG ≥3, any pathological progression, AS attrition, and patient choice for treatment were assessed. Differences in progression were compared with chi-square statistics.

Results and limitations

Data from 156 men (median age 67.3 yr) were analysed. Of these, 38.4% had CPG2 disease and 27.5% had grade group 2 disease at diagnosis. The median time on AS was 4 yr (interquartile range 3.2-4.9) and 1.5 yr on STRATCANS. Overall, 135/156 (86.5%) men remained on AS or converted to watchful waiting and 6/156 (3.8%) stopped AS by choice by the end of the evaluation period. Of the 156 patients, 66 (42.3%) were allocated to STRATCANS 1 (least intense follow-up), 61 (39.1%) to STRATCANS 2, and 29 (18.6%) to STRATCANS 3 (highest intensity). By increasing STRATCANS tier, progression rates to CPG ≥3 and any progression events were 0% and 4.6%, 3.4% and 8.6%, and 7.4% and 22.2%, respectively (p = 0.019). Modelling resource usage suggested potential reductions in appointments by 22% and MRI by 42% compared with current NICE guideline recommendations (first 12 months of AS). The study is limited by short follow-up, a relatively small cohort, and being single centre.

Conclusions

A simple risk-tiered AS strategy is possible with early outcomes supporting stratified follow-up intensity. STRATCANS implementation could de-escalate follow-up in men at a low risk of progression while husbanding resources for those who need closer follow-up.

Patient summary

We report a practical way to personalise follow-up for men on active surveillance for early prostate cancer. Our method may allow reductions in the follow-up burden for men at a low risk of disease change while maintaining vigilance for those at a higher risk.

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.