Jeffrey J Tosoian1, Mufaddal Mamawala1, Jonathan I Epstein1, Patricia Landis1, Sacha Wolf1, Bruce J Trock1, H Ballentine Carter2. 1. All authors: The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD. 2. All authors: The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD. hcarter@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess long-term outcomes of men with favorable-risk prostate cancer in a prospective, active-surveillance program. METHODS: Curative intervention was recommended for disease reclassification to higher cancer grade or volume on prostate biopsy. Primary outcomes were overall, cancer-specific, and metastasis-free survival. Secondary outcomes were the cumulative incidence of reclassification and curative intervention. Factors associated with grade reclassification and curative intervention were evaluated in a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 1,298 men (median age, 66 years) with a median follow-up of 5 years (range, 0.01 to 18.00 years) contributed 6,766 person-years of follow-up since 1995. Overall, cancer-specific, and metastasis-free survival rates were 93%, 99.9%, and 99.4%, respectively, at 10 years and 69%, 99.9%, and 99.4%, respectively, at 15 years. The cumulative incidence of grade reclassification was 26% at 10 years and was 31% at 15 years; cumulative incidence of curative intervention was 50% at 10 years and was 57% at 15 years. The median treatment-free survival was 8.5 years (range, 0.01 to 18 years). Factors associated with grade reclassification were older age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03 for each additional year; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06), prostate-specific antigen density (HR, 1.21 per 0.1 unit increase; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.46), and greater number of positive biopsy cores (HR, 1.47 for each additional positive core; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.69). Factors associated with intervention were prostate-specific antigen density (HR, 1.38 per 0.1 unit increase; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.56) and a greater number of positive biopsy cores (HR, 1.35 for one additional positive core; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.53). CONCLUSION: Men with favorable-risk prostate cancer should be informed of the low likelihood of harm from their diagnosis and should be encouraged to consider surveillance rather than curative intervention.
PURPOSE: To assess long-term outcomes of men with favorable-risk prostate cancer in a prospective, active-surveillance program. METHODS: Curative intervention was recommended for disease reclassification to higher cancer grade or volume on prostate biopsy. Primary outcomes were overall, cancer-specific, and metastasis-free survival. Secondary outcomes were the cumulative incidence of reclassification and curative intervention. Factors associated with grade reclassification and curative intervention were evaluated in a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 1,298 men (median age, 66 years) with a median follow-up of 5 years (range, 0.01 to 18.00 years) contributed 6,766 person-years of follow-up since 1995. Overall, cancer-specific, and metastasis-free survival rates were 93%, 99.9%, and 99.4%, respectively, at 10 years and 69%, 99.9%, and 99.4%, respectively, at 15 years. The cumulative incidence of grade reclassification was 26% at 10 years and was 31% at 15 years; cumulative incidence of curative intervention was 50% at 10 years and was 57% at 15 years. The median treatment-free survival was 8.5 years (range, 0.01 to 18 years). Factors associated with grade reclassification were older age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03 for each additional year; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06), prostate-specific antigen density (HR, 1.21 per 0.1 unit increase; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.46), and greater number of positive biopsy cores (HR, 1.47 for each additional positive core; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.69). Factors associated with intervention were prostate-specific antigen density (HR, 1.38 per 0.1 unit increase; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.56) and a greater number of positive biopsy cores (HR, 1.35 for one additional positive core; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.53). CONCLUSION:Men with favorable-risk prostate cancer should be informed of the low likelihood of harm from their diagnosis and should be encouraged to consider surveillance rather than curative intervention.
Authors: Paul R Womble; James E Montie; Zaojun Ye; Susan M Linsell; Brian R Lane; David C Miller Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-08-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Danielle A Southern; Peter D Faris; Rollin Brant; P Diane Galbraith; Colleen M Norris; Merril L Knudtson; William A Ghali Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Christopher J Welty; Janet E Cowan; Hao Nguyen; Katsuto Shinohara; Nannette Perez; Kirsten L Greene; June M Chan; Maxwell V Meng; Jeffry P Simko; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-09-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Marc A Dall'Era; Peter C Albertsen; Christopher Bangma; Peter R Carroll; H Ballentine Carter; Matthew R Cooperberg; Stephen J Freedland; Laurence H Klotz; Christopher Parker; Mark S Soloway Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Lisa F Newcomb; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Ziding Feng; Martin E Gleave; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Daniel W Lin Journal: Urology Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Marco Zappa; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Liisa Määttänen; Hans Lilja; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Paez; Chris H Bangma; Sigrid Carlsson; Donella Puliti; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Matti Hakama; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Paula Kujala; Kimmo Taari; Gunnar Aus; Andreas Huber; Theo H van der Kwast; Ron H N van Schaik; Harry J de Koning; Sue M Moss; Anssi Auvinen Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Peter R Carroll; J Kellogg Parsons; Gerald Andriole; Robert R Bahnson; Daniel A Barocas; William J Catalona; Douglas M Dahl; John W Davis; Jonathan I Epstein; Ruth B Etzioni; Veda N Giri; George P Hemstreet; Mark H Kawachi; Paul H Lange; Kevin R Loughlin; William Lowrance; Paul Maroni; James Mohler; Todd M Morgan; Robert B Nadler; Michael Poch; Chuck Scales; Terrence M Shanefelt; Andrew J Vickers; Robert Wake; Dorothy A Shead; Maria Ho Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Nima Nassiri; Daniel J Margolis; Shyam Natarajan; Devi S Sharma; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 7.450
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: J Curtis Nickel; Michael A Gorin; Partin Alan W; Stacy Loeb; Shapiro Ellen; Michael B Chancellor; Dean G Assimos; Michael K Brawer; Benjamin M Brucker Journal: Rev Urol Date: 2016
Authors: David Bonekamp; M B Wolf; M C Roethke; S Pahernik; B A Hadaschik; G Hatiboglu; T H Kuru; I V Popeneciu; J L Chin; M Billia; J Relle; J Hafron; K R Nandalur; R M Staruch; M Burtnyk; M Hohenfellner; H-P Schlemmer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Daniel A Galvão; Dennis R Taaffe; Nigel Spry; Robert A Gardiner; Renea Taylor; Gail P Risbridger; Mark Frydenberg; Michelle Hill; Suzanne K Chambers; Phillip Stricker; Tom Shannon; Dickon Hayne; Eva Zopf; Robert U Newton Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 14.432