Ridwan Alam1, H Ballentine Carter1, Patricia Landis1, Jonathan I Epstein1, Mufaddal Mamawala2. 1. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: mmamawa1@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the risk of prostate cancer reclassification by time on active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1995 to 2014 we evaluated 557 and 251 men at very low and at low risk, respectively, who were on active surveillance and compliant with prostate biopsies. Our primary study outcome was reclassification to higher risk disease by grade or extent. Freedom from reclassification was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier approach with adjustment for covariates using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Within the first 2 years of surveillance patient survival free of reclassification by grade (p = 0.20) and by any biopsy criteria (p = 0.25) was similar in men with very low and low risk disease. After 2 years men with low risk disease were 2.4 times more likely to be diagnosed with a Gleason score of greater than 6 than men with very low risk disease (p = 0.002, HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.9-3.5). Additionally, beyond 2 years on surveillance the risk of lifetime reclassification by grade and by any criteria decreased by 30% and 35% (each p <0.0001, HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60-0.76 and HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.57-0.72, respectively) with each biopsy that showed no reclassification. CONCLUSIONS: The reclassification rate during surveillance is not equally distributed across time or risk groups. Due to misclassification at diagnosis the reclassification rate in very low and low risk groups is similar in the first 2 years but differs significantly beyond 2 years. The risk of reclassification decreases with time for each nonreclassifying biopsy beyond 2 years.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the risk of prostate cancer reclassification by time on active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1995 to 2014 we evaluated 557 and 251 men at very low and at low risk, respectively, who were on active surveillance and compliant with prostate biopsies. Our primary study outcome was reclassification to higher risk disease by grade or extent. Freedom from reclassification was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier approach with adjustment for covariates using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Within the first 2 years of surveillance patient survival free of reclassification by grade (p = 0.20) and by any biopsy criteria (p = 0.25) was similar in men with very low and low risk disease. After 2 years men with low risk disease were 2.4 times more likely to be diagnosed with a Gleason score of greater than 6 than men with very low risk disease (p = 0.002, HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.9-3.5). Additionally, beyond 2 years on surveillance the risk of lifetime reclassification by grade and by any criteria decreased by 30% and 35% (each p <0.0001, HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60-0.76 and HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.57-0.72, respectively) with each biopsy that showed no reclassification. CONCLUSIONS: The reclassification rate during surveillance is not equally distributed across time or risk groups. Due to misclassification at diagnosis the reclassification rate in very low and low risk groups is similar in the first 2 years but differs significantly beyond 2 years. The risk of reclassification decreases with time for each nonreclassifying biopsy beyond 2 years.
Authors: Gerrit Draisma; Rob Boer; Suzie J Otto; Ingrid W van der Cruijsen; Ronald A M Damhuis; Fritz H Schröder; Harry J de Koning Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-06-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Susan R Harlan; Matthew R Cooperberg; Eric P Elkin; Deborah P Lubeck; Maxwell V Meng; Shilpa S Mehta; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Eric JohnBull; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: M Shipitsin; C Small; S Choudhury; E Giladi; S Friedlander; J Nardone; S Hussain; A D Hurley; C Ernst; Y E Huang; H Chang; T P Nifong; D L Rimm; J Dunyak; M Loda; D M Berman; P Blume-Jensen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Lurdes Y T Inoue; Daniel W Lin; Lisa F Newcomb; Amy S Leonardson; Donna Ankerst; Roman Gulati; H Ballentine Carter; Bruce J Trock; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; Janet E Cowan; Laurence H Klotz; Alexandre Mamedov; David F Penson; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Caitlin Curnyn; Angela Fagerlin; Ronald Scott Braithwaite; Mark D Schwartz; Herbert Lepor; Herbert Ballentine Carter; Erica Sedlander Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-10-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Inderbir S Gill; Abdel-Rahmene Azzouzi; Mark Emberton; Jonathan A Coleman; Emmanuel Coeytaux; Avigdor Scherz; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-06-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Justin R Gregg; John W Davis; Chad Reichard; Xuemei Wang; Mary Achim; Brian F Chapin; Louis Pisters; Curtis Pettaway; John F Ward; Seungtaek Choi; Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; Deborah Kuban; Richard Babaian; Patricia Troncoso; Lydia T Madsen; Christopher Logothetis; Jeri Kim Journal: Urology Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Julie Y An; Abhinav Sidana; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J. Wood; Peter A Pinto; İsmail Barış Türkbey Journal: Balkan Med J Date: 2017-09-29 Impact factor: 2.021