Jane M Lange1, Aaron A Laviana2, David F Penson3,4, Daniel W Lin5, Anna Bill-Axelson6, Sigrid V Carlsson7,8,9, Lisa F Newcomb10, Bruce J Trock11, H Ballentine Carter12, Peter R Carroll13, Mathew R Cooperberg14, Janet E Cowan15, Laurence H Klotz16, Ruth B Etzioni1,17. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 2. Vanderbilt Center for Health Services Research, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. 4. Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. 5. Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 6. Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 7. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 8. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 9. Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 10. Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 11. Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 12. Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 13. Department of Urology, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 14. Department of Urology, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 15. Mission Bay Library, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 16. Department of Urology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 17. Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is an accepted means of managing low-risk prostate cancer. Because of the rarity of downstream events, data from existing AS cohorts cannot yet address how differences in surveillance intensity affect metastasis and mortality. This study projected the comparative benefits of different AS schedules in men diagnosed with prostate cancer who had Gleason score (GS) ≤6 disease and risk profiles similar to those in North American AS cohorts. METHODS: Times of GS upgrading were simulated based on AS data from the University of Toronto, Johns Hopkins University, the University of California at San Francisco, and the Canary Pass Active Surveillance Cohort. Times to metastasis and prostate cancer death, informed by models from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 trial, were projected under biopsy surveillance schedules ranging from watchful waiting to annual biopsies. Outcomes included the risk of metastasis, the risk of death, remaining life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs. RESULTS: Compared with watchful waiting, AS biopsies reduced the risk of prostate cancer metastasis and prostate cancer death at 20 years by 1.4% to 3.3% and 1.0% to 2.4%, respectively; and 5-year biopsies reduced the risk of metastasis and prostate cancer death by 1.0% to 2.4% and 0.6% to 1.6%, respectively. There was little difference between annual and 5-year biopsy schedules in terms of LYs (range of differences, 0.04-0.16 LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (range of differences, -0.02 to 0.09 quality-adjusted LYs). CONCLUSIONS: Among men diagnosed with GS ≤6 prostate cancer, obtaining a biopsy every 3 or 4 years appears to be an acceptable alternative to more frequent biopsies. Reducing surveillance intensity for those who have a low risk of progression reduces the number of biopsies while preserving the benefit of more frequent schedules.
BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is an accepted means of managing low-risk prostate cancer. Because of the rarity of downstream events, data from existing AS cohorts cannot yet address how differences in surveillance intensity affect metastasis and mortality. This study projected the comparative benefits of different AS schedules in men diagnosed with prostate cancer who had Gleason score (GS) ≤6 disease and risk profiles similar to those in North American AS cohorts. METHODS: Times of GS upgrading were simulated based on AS data from the University of Toronto, Johns Hopkins University, the University of California at San Francisco, and the Canary Pass Active Surveillance Cohort. Times to metastasis and prostate cancer death, informed by models from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 trial, were projected under biopsy surveillance schedules ranging from watchful waiting to annual biopsies. Outcomes included the risk of metastasis, the risk of death, remaining life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs. RESULTS: Compared with watchful waiting, AS biopsies reduced the risk of prostate cancer metastasis and prostate cancer death at 20 years by 1.4% to 3.3% and 1.0% to 2.4%, respectively; and 5-year biopsies reduced the risk of metastasis and prostate cancer death by 1.0% to 2.4% and 0.6% to 1.6%, respectively. There was little difference between annual and 5-year biopsy schedules in terms of LYs (range of differences, 0.04-0.16 LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (range of differences, -0.02 to 0.09 quality-adjusted LYs). CONCLUSIONS: Among men diagnosed with GS ≤6 prostate cancer, obtaining a biopsy every 3 or 4 years appears to be an acceptable alternative to more frequent biopsies. Reducing surveillance intensity for those who have a low risk of progression reduces the number of biopsies while preserving the benefit of more frequent schedules.
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: Brandon A Mahal; Santino Butler; Idalid Franco; Daniel E Spratt; Timothy R Rebbeck; Anthony V D'Amico; Paul L Nguyen Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Julia H Hayes; Daniel A Ollendorf; Steven D Pearson; Michael J Barry; Philip W Kantoff; Susan T Stewart; Vibha Bhatnagar; Christopher J Sweeney; James E Stahl; Pamela M McMahon Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lisa F Newcomb; Ian M Thompson; Hilary D Boyer; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; Atreya Dash; William J Ellis; Ladan Fazli; Ziding Feng; Martin E Gleave; Priya Kunju; Raymond S Lance; Jesse K McKenney; Maxwell V Meng; Marlo M Nicolas; Martin G Sanda; Jeffry Simko; Alan So; Maria S Tretiakova; Dean A Troyer; Lawrence D True; Funda Vakar-Lopez; Jeff Virgin; Andrew A Wagner; John T Wei; Yingye Zheng; Peter S Nelson; Daniel W Lin Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Hans Garmo; Jennifer R Rider; Kimmo Taari; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Anders Spångberg; Ove Andrén; Juni Palmgren; Gunnar Steineck; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ronald C Chen; R Bryan Rumble; D Andrew Loblaw; Antonio Finelli; Behfar Ehdaie; Matthew R Cooperberg; Scott C Morgan; Scott Tyldesley; John J Haluschak; Winston Tan; Stewart Justman; Suneil Jain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N W Calvert; A B Morgan; J W F Catto; F C Hamdy; R L Akehurst; P Mouncey; S Paisley Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2003-01-13 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Luke P O'Connor; Alex Z Wang; Nitin K Yerram; Amir H Lebastchi; Michael Ahdoot; Sandeep Gurram; Johnathan Zeng; Sherif Mehralivand; Stephanie Harmon; Maria J Merino; Howard L Parnes; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urology Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Nathaniel Hendrix; Roman Gulati; Boshen Jiao; A Karim Kader; Stephen T Ryan; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Inari Kalalahti; Hanna Vasarainen; Andrew M Erickson; Arttu Siipola; Kari A O Tikkinen; Antti Rannikko Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-10-28
Authors: Boshen Jiao; Roman Gulati; Nathaniel Hendrix; John L Gore; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Todd M Morgan; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Value Health Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 5.101