INTRODUCTION: Active surveillance is a strategy to delay or prevent treatment of indolent prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria were developed to select patients for prostate cancer active surveillance. The objective of this study was to compare pathological findings from PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients. METHODS: A D'Amico low-risk cohort of 1512 radical prostatectomy patients treated at The Ottawa Hospital or Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre between January 1995 and December 2007 was reviewed. Pathological outcomes (pT3 tumours, Gleason sum ≥7, lymph node metastases, or a composite) and clinical outcomes (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] recurrence, secondary cancer treatments, and death) were compared between PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible cohorts. RESULTS: The PRIAS-eligible cohort (n=945) was less likely to have Gleason score ≥7 (odds ratio [OR] 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.75), pT3 (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.31-0.55), nodal metastases (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.10-1.31), or any adverse feature (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45-0.69) compared to the PRIAS-ineligible cohort. The probability of any adverse pathology in the PRIAS-eligible cohort was 41% vs. 56% in the PRIAS-ineligible cohort. At median follow-up of 3.7 years, 72 (4.8%) patients had a PSA recurrence, 24 (1.6%) received pelvic radiation, and 13 (0.9%) received androgen deprivation. No difference was detected for recurrence-free and overall survival between groups (recurrence hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; 95% CI 0.46-1.09 and survival HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.36-1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Low-risk prostate cancer patients who met PRIAS eligibility criteria are less likely to have higher-risk cancer compared to those who did not meet at least one of these criteria.
INTRODUCTION: Active surveillance is a strategy to delay or prevent treatment of indolent prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria were developed to select patients for prostate cancer active surveillance. The objective of this study was to compare pathological findings from PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible clinically low-risk prostate cancerpatients. METHODS: A D'Amico low-risk cohort of 1512 radical prostatectomy patients treated at The Ottawa Hospital or Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre between January 1995 and December 2007 was reviewed. Pathological outcomes (pT3tumours, Gleason sum ≥7, lymph node metastases, or a composite) and clinical outcomes (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] recurrence, secondary cancer treatments, and death) were compared between PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible cohorts. RESULTS: The PRIAS-eligible cohort (n=945) was less likely to have Gleason score ≥7 (odds ratio [OR] 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.75), pT3 (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.31-0.55), nodal metastases (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.10-1.31), or any adverse feature (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45-0.69) compared to the PRIAS-ineligible cohort. The probability of any adverse pathology in the PRIAS-eligible cohort was 41% vs. 56% in the PRIAS-ineligible cohort. At median follow-up of 3.7 years, 72 (4.8%) patients had a PSA recurrence, 24 (1.6%) received pelvic radiation, and 13 (0.9%) received androgen deprivation. No difference was detected for recurrence-free and overall survival between groups (recurrence hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; 95% CI 0.46-1.09 and survival HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.36-1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Low-risk prostate cancerpatients who met PRIAS eligibility criteria are less likely to have higher-risk cancer compared to those who did not meet at least one of these criteria.
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; James A Eastham; Markus Graefen; Bertrand Guillonneau; R Jeffrey Karnes; Judd W Moul; Edward M Schaeffer; Christian Stief; Kevin C Zorn Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Albert El Hajj; Guillaume Ploussard; Alexandre de la Taille; Yves Allory; Dimitri Vordos; Andras Hoznek; Claude Clément Abbou; Laurent Salomon Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mark S Soloway; Cynthia T Soloway; Ahmed Eldefrawy; Kristell Acosta; Bruce Kava; Murugesan Manoharan Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-08-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Georg Müller; Gernot Bonkat; Malte Rieken; Stephen F Wyler; Lukas Bubendorf; Heike Püschel; Thomas C Gasser; Alexander Bachmann; Cyrill A Rentsch Journal: Urology Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 2.649