Jeffrey J Tosoian1, Debasish Sundi1, Bruce J Trock2, Patricia Landis1, Jonathan I Epstein3, Edward M Schaeffer3, H Ballentine Carter4, Mufaddal Mamawala5. 1. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA; Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA; Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: mmamawa1@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether men selecting active surveillance (AS) are at increased risk of unfavorable longer term outcomes as compared with men who undergo immediate treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare adverse pathologic outcomes in men with favorable-risk prostate cancer who underwent delayed prostatectomy after surveillance (DPAS) to those who elected immediate prostatectomy (IRP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective AS registry from 2004 to 2014. From the Johns Hopkins AS program (n = 1298), we identified a subset of men who underwent DPAS (n = 89) and was representative of the entire cohort, not just those that were reclassified to higher risk. These men were compared with men who underwent IRP (n = 3788). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We measured adverse pathologic features (primary Gleason pattern ≥ 4, seminal vesicle invasion [SVI], or lymph node [LN] positivity). Multivariable models were adjusted for age, prostate-specific antigen density, and baseline risk classification. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Delayed prostatectomy occurred at a median of 2.0 yr (range: 0.6-9.0) after diagnosis. The DPAS and IRP cohorts demonstrated similar proportions of men with primary Gleason pattern ≥ 4 (17% vs 20%; p = 0.11), SVI (3.3% vs 3.2%; p = 0.53), LN positivity (2.3% vs 1.2%; p = 0.37), and overall adverse pathologic features (21.3% vs 17.0%; p = 0.32). The adjusted odds ratio of adverse pathology was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-2.79; p = 0.13) for DPAS as compared with IRP. Limitations include a modest cohort size and a limited number of events. CONCLUSIONS: In men with favorable-risk cancer, the decision to undergo AS is not independently associated with adverse pathologic outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: This report compares men with favorable-risk prostate cancer who elected active surveillance with those who underwent immediate surgery accounting for evidence that approximately one-third of men who choose surveillance will eventually undergo treatment. Our findings suggest that men who are closely followed with surveillance may have similar outcomes to men who elect immediate surgery, but additional research is needed.
BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether men selecting active surveillance (AS) are at increased risk of unfavorable longer term outcomes as compared with men who undergo immediate treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare adverse pathologic outcomes in men with favorable-risk prostate cancer who underwent delayed prostatectomy after surveillance (DPAS) to those who elected immediate prostatectomy (IRP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective AS registry from 2004 to 2014. From the Johns Hopkins AS program (n = 1298), we identified a subset of men who underwent DPAS (n = 89) and was representative of the entire cohort, not just those that were reclassified to higher risk. These men were compared with men who underwent IRP (n = 3788). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We measured adverse pathologic features (primary Gleason pattern ≥ 4, seminal vesicle invasion [SVI], or lymph node [LN] positivity). Multivariable models were adjusted for age, prostate-specific antigen density, and baseline risk classification. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Delayed prostatectomy occurred at a median of 2.0 yr (range: 0.6-9.0) after diagnosis. The DPAS and IRP cohorts demonstrated similar proportions of men with primary Gleason pattern ≥ 4 (17% vs 20%; p = 0.11), SVI (3.3% vs 3.2%; p = 0.53), LN positivity (2.3% vs 1.2%; p = 0.37), and overall adverse pathologic features (21.3% vs 17.0%; p = 0.32). The adjusted odds ratio of adverse pathology was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-2.79; p = 0.13) for DPAS as compared with IRP. Limitations include a modest cohort size and a limited number of events. CONCLUSIONS: In men with favorable-risk cancer, the decision to undergo AS is not independently associated with adverse pathologic outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: This report compares men with favorable-risk prostate cancer who elected active surveillance with those who underwent immediate surgery accounting for evidence that approximately one-third of men who choose surveillance will eventually undergo treatment. Our findings suggest that men who are closely followed with surveillance may have similar outcomes to men who elect immediate surgery, but additional research is needed.
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Stacy Loeb; Jonathan I Epstein; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book Date: 2016
Authors: Gregory B Auffenberg; Susan Linsell; Apoorv Dhir; Stacie N Myers; Bradley Rosenberg; David C Miller Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-05-30 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Bruce J Trock; Helen Fedor; Bora Gurel; Robert B Jenkins; B S Knudsen; Samson W Fine; Jonathan W Said; H Ballentine Carter; Tamara L Lotan; Angelo M De Marzo Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Kittie Pang; Margaret Fitch; Veronique Ouellet; Simone Chevalier; Darrel E Drachenberg; Antonio Finelli; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Alan So; Simon Sutcliffe; Simon Tanguay; Fred Saad; Anne-Marie Mes-Masson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 2.655