PURPOSE: We evaluated predictors of progression after starting active surveillance, especially the role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 238 men with prostate cancer met active surveillance eligibility criteria and were analyzed for progression with time. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate predictors of progression. Progression was evaluated using 2 definitions, including no longer meeting 1) full and 2) modified criteria, excluding prostate specific antigen greater than 10 ng/ml as a criterion. RESULTS: Using full criteria 61 patients progressed during followup. The 2 and 5-year progression-free probability was 80% and 60%, respectively. With prostate specific antigen included in progression criteria prostate specific antigen at confirmatory biopsy (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.14-1.46, p <0.0005) and positive confirmatory biopsy (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.01-3.04, p = 0.047) were independent predictors of progression. Of the 61 cases 34 failed due to increased prostate specific antigen, including only 5 with subsequent progression by biopsy criteria. When prostate specific antigen was excluded from progression criteria, only 32 cases progressed, and 2 and 5-year progression-free probability was 91% and 76%, respectively. Using modified criteria as an end point positive confirmatory biopsy was the only independent predictor of progression (HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.41-7.09, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance is feasible in patients with low risk prostate cancer and most patients show little evidence of progression within 5 years. There is no clear justification for treating patients in whom prostate specific antigen increases above 10 ng/ml in the absence of other indications of tumor progression. Patients considering active surveillance should undergo confirmatory biopsy to better assess the risk of progression. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: We evaluated predictors of progression after starting active surveillance, especially the role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 238 men with prostate cancer met active surveillance eligibility criteria and were analyzed for progression with time. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate predictors of progression. Progression was evaluated using 2 definitions, including no longer meeting 1) full and 2) modified criteria, excluding prostate specific antigen greater than 10 ng/ml as a criterion. RESULTS: Using full criteria 61 patients progressed during followup. The 2 and 5-year progression-free probability was 80% and 60%, respectively. With prostate specific antigen included in progression criteria prostate specific antigen at confirmatory biopsy (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.14-1.46, p <0.0005) and positive confirmatory biopsy (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.01-3.04, p = 0.047) were independent predictors of progression. Of the 61 cases 34 failed due to increased prostate specific antigen, including only 5 with subsequent progression by biopsy criteria. When prostate specific antigen was excluded from progression criteria, only 32 cases progressed, and 2 and 5-year progression-free probability was 91% and 76%, respectively. Using modified criteria as an end point positive confirmatory biopsy was the only independent predictor of progression (HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.41-7.09, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance is feasible in patients with low risk prostate cancer and most patients show little evidence of progression within 5 years. There is no clear justification for treating patients in whom prostate specific antigen increases above 10 ng/ml in the absence of other indications of tumor progression. Patients considering active surveillance should undergo confirmatory biopsy to better assess the risk of progression. Copyright Â
Authors: Ashley E Ross; Stacy Loeb; Patricia Landis; Alan W Partin; Jonathan I Epstein; Anna Kettermann; Zhaoyong Feng; H Ballentine Carter; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Armen G Aprikian; Luis Souhami; Hassan Behlouli; Avrum I Jacobson; Louis R Bégin; Simon Tanguay Journal: Urology Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Masood A Khan; H Ballentine Carter; Jonathan I Epstein; Michael C Miller; Patricia Landis; Patrick W Walsh; Alan W Partin; Robert W Veltri Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Manish I Patel; Dino T DeConcini; Ernesto Lopez-Corona; Makato Ohori; Thomas Wheeler; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Matthew Frank O'Brien; Angel M Cronin; Paul A Fearn; Brandon Smith; Jason Stasi; Bertrand Guillonneau; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Andrew J Vickers; Hans Lilja Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-06-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael W Kattan; James A Eastham; Thomas M Wheeler; Norio Maru; Peter T Scardino; Andreas Erbersdobler; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland; Hideshige Koh; Shahrokh F Shariat; Kevin M Slawin; Makoto Ohori Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Sophie M Bruinsma; Joseph Nicholson; Alberto Briganti; Tom Pickles; Yoshiyuki Kakehi; Sigrid V Carlsson; Monique J Roobol Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: L M Wong; D E Neal; A Finelli; S Davis; C Bonner; J Kapoor; J Trachtenberg; B Thomas; C M Hovens; A J Costello; N M Corcoran Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Jonathan L Silberstein; Andrew J Vickers; Nicholas E Power; Samson W Fine; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Vincent P Laudone Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-04-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: L M Wong; S Ferrara; S M H Alibhai; A Evans; T Van der Kwast; G Trottier; N Timilshina; A Toi; G Kulkarni; R Hamilton; A Zlotta; N Fleshner; A Finelli Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 5.554