A A Hussein1, C J Welty2, N Ameli2, J E Cowan2, M Leapman2, S P Porten2, K Shinohara2, P R Carroll3. 1. Department of Urology and UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Department of Urology, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. 2. Department of Urology and UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. Department of Urology and UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: pcarroll@urology.ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We describe the outcomes of patients with low risk localized prostate cancer who were upgraded on a surveillance biopsy while on active surveillance and evaluated whether delayed treatment was associated with adverse outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included men in the study with lower risk disease managed initially with active surveillance and upgraded to Gleason score 3+4 or greater. Patient demographics and disease characteristics were compared. Kaplan-Meier curve was used to estimate the treatment-free probability stratified by initial upgrade (3+4 vs 4+3 or greater), Cox regression analysis was used to examine factors associated with treatment and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the factors associated with adverse outcome at surgery. RESULTS: The final cohort comprised 219 men, with 150 (68%) upgraded to 3+4 and 69 (32%) to 4+3 or greater. Median time to upgrade was 23 months (IQR 11-49). A total of 163 men (74%) sought treatment, the majority (69%) with radical prostatectomy. The treatment-free survival rate at 5 years was 22% for 3+4 and 10% for 4+3 or greater upgrade. Upgrade to 4+3 or greater, higher prostate specific antigen density at diagnosis and shorter time to initial upgrade were associated with treatment. At surgical pathology 34% of cancers were downgraded while 6% were upgraded. Cancer volume at initial upgrade was associated with adverse pathological outcome at surgery (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.19-9.29, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: After Gleason score upgrade most patients elected treatment with radical prostatectomy. Among men who deferred definitive intervention, few experienced additional upgrading. At radical prostatectomy only 6% of cases were upgraded further and only tumor volume at initial upgrade was significantly associated with adverse pathological outcome.
PURPOSE: We describe the outcomes of patients with low risk localized prostate cancer who were upgraded on a surveillance biopsy while on active surveillance and evaluated whether delayed treatment was associated with adverse outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included men in the study with lower risk disease managed initially with active surveillance and upgraded to Gleason score 3+4 or greater. Patient demographics and disease characteristics were compared. Kaplan-Meier curve was used to estimate the treatment-free probability stratified by initial upgrade (3+4 vs 4+3 or greater), Cox regression analysis was used to examine factors associated with treatment and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the factors associated with adverse outcome at surgery. RESULTS: The final cohort comprised 219 men, with 150 (68%) upgraded to 3+4 and 69 (32%) to 4+3 or greater. Median time to upgrade was 23 months (IQR 11-49). A total of 163 men (74%) sought treatment, the majority (69%) with radical prostatectomy. The treatment-free survival rate at 5 years was 22% for 3+4 and 10% for 4+3 or greater upgrade. Upgrade to 4+3 or greater, higher prostate specific antigen density at diagnosis and shorter time to initial upgrade were associated with treatment. At surgical pathology 34% of cancers were downgraded while 6% were upgraded. Cancer volume at initial upgrade was associated with adverse pathological outcome at surgery (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.19-9.29, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: After Gleason score upgrade most patients elected treatment with radical prostatectomy. Among men who deferred definitive intervention, few experienced additional upgrading. At radical prostatectomy only 6% of cases were upgraded further and only tumor volume at initial upgrade was significantly associated with adverse pathological outcome.
Authors: Michael S Leapman; Janet E Cowan; Hao G Nguyen; Katsuto K Shinohara; Nannette Perez; Matthew R Cooperberg; William J Catalona; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John W Davis; John F Ward; Curtis A Pettaway; Xuemei Wang; Deborah Kuban; Steven J Frank; Andrew K Lee; Louis L Pisters; Surena F Matin; Jay B Shah; Jose A Karam; Brian F Chapin; John N Papadopoulos; Mary Achim; Karen E Hoffman; Thomas J Pugh; Seungtaek Choi; Patricia Troncoso; Christopher J Logothetis; Jeri Kim Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-07-04 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Raju Chelluri; Amichai Kilchevsky; Arvin K George; Abhinav Sidana; Thomas P Frye; Daniel Su; Michele Fascelli; Richard Ho; Steven F Abboud; Baris Turkbey; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-02-13 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Liam C Macleod; William J Ellis; Lisa F Newcomb; Yingye Zheng; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Martin E Gleave; Raymond S Lance; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Andrew A Wagner; John T Wei; Daniel W Lin Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 7.450