PURPOSE: For select men with low risk prostate cancer active surveillance is more often being considered a management strategy. In a multicenter retrospective study we evaluated the actuarial rates and predictors of remaining on active surveillance, the incidence of cancer progression and the pathological findings of delayed radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 262 men from 4 institutions met the inclusion criteria of age 75 years or younger, prostate specific antigen 10 ng/ml or less, clinical stage T1-T2a, biopsy Gleason sum 6 or less, 3 or less positive cores at diagnostic biopsy, repeat biopsy before active surveillance and no treatment for 6 months following the repeat biopsy. Active surveillance started on the date of the second biopsy. Actuarial rates of remaining on active surveillance were calculated and univariate Cox regression was used to assess predictors of discontinuing active surveillance. RESULTS: With a median followup of 29 months 43 patients ultimately received active treatment. The 2 and 5-year probabilities of remaining on active surveillance were 91% and 75%, respectively. Patients with cancer on the second biopsy (HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.23-4.06, p = 0.007) and a higher number of cancerous cores from the 2 biopsies combined (p = 0.002) were more likely to undergo treatment. Age, prostate specific antigen, clinical stage, prostate volume and number of total biopsy cores sampled were not predictive of outcome. Skeletal metastases developed in 1 patient 38 months after starting active surveillance. Of the 43 patients undergoing delayed treatment 41 (95%) are without disease progression at a median of 23 months following treatment. CONCLUSIONS: With a median followup of 29 months active surveillance for select patients appears to be safe and associated with a low risk of systemic progression. Cancer at restaging biopsy and a higher total number of cancerous cores are associated with a lower likelihood of remaining on active surveillance. A restaging biopsy should be strongly considered to finalize eligibility for active surveillance.
PURPOSE: For select men with low risk prostate cancer active surveillance is more often being considered a management strategy. In a multicenter retrospective study we evaluated the actuarial rates and predictors of remaining on active surveillance, the incidence of cancer progression and the pathological findings of delayed radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 262 men from 4 institutions met the inclusion criteria of age 75 years or younger, prostate specific antigen 10 ng/ml or less, clinical stage T1-T2a, biopsy Gleason sum 6 or less, 3 or less positive cores at diagnostic biopsy, repeat biopsy before active surveillance and no treatment for 6 months following the repeat biopsy. Active surveillance started on the date of the second biopsy. Actuarial rates of remaining on active surveillance were calculated and univariate Cox regression was used to assess predictors of discontinuing active surveillance. RESULTS: With a median followup of 29 months 43 patients ultimately received active treatment. The 2 and 5-year probabilities of remaining on active surveillance were 91% and 75%, respectively. Patients with cancer on the second biopsy (HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.23-4.06, p = 0.007) and a higher number of cancerous cores from the 2 biopsies combined (p = 0.002) were more likely to undergo treatment. Age, prostate specific antigen, clinical stage, prostate volume and number of total biopsy cores sampled were not predictive of outcome. Skeletal metastases developed in 1 patient 38 months after starting active surveillance. Of the 43 patients undergoing delayed treatment 41 (95%) are without disease progression at a median of 23 months following treatment. CONCLUSIONS: With a median followup of 29 months active surveillance for select patients appears to be safe and associated with a low risk of systemic progression. Cancer at restaging biopsy and a higher total number of cancerous cores are associated with a lower likelihood of remaining on active surveillance. A restaging biopsy should be strongly considered to finalize eligibility for active surveillance.
Authors: Geoffrey A Sonn; Christopher P Filson; Edward Chang; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J Margolis; Malu Macairan; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Patrick O Richard; Shabbir M H Alibhai; Tony Panzarella; Laurence Klotz; Maria Komisarenko; Neil E Fleshner; David Urbach; Antonio Finelli Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Hsin-Yu Chen; Peder E Z Larson; Robert A Bok; Cornelius von Morze; Renuka Sriram; Romelyn Delos Santos; Justin Delos Santos; Jeremy W Gordon; Naeim Bahrami; Marcus Ferrone; John Kurhanewicz; Daniel B Vigneron Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Melissa Assel; Anders Dahlin; David Ulmert; Anders Bergh; Pär Stattin; Hans Lilja; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-10-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Christopher B Anderson; Amy L Tin; Daniel D Sjoberg; John P Mulhall; Jaspreet Sandhu; Karim Touijer; Vincent P Laudone; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Maximilian F Lang; Mark D Tyson; JoAnn Rudd Alvarez; Tatsuki Koyama; Karen E Hoffman; Matthew J Resnick; Matthew R Cooperberg; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Vivien Chen; Lisa E Paddock; Ann S Hamilton; Mia Hashibe; Michael Goodman; Sheldon Greenfield; Sherrie H Kaplan; Antoinette Stroup; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: Urology Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Tatsuo Gondo; Bing Ying Poon; Kazuhiro Matsumoto; Melanie Bernstein; Daniel D Sjoberg; James A Eastham Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 5.588