Literature DB >> 31918957

Active Surveillance of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer: Long-term Outcomes from a Large Prospective Cohort.

Jeffrey J Tosoian1, Mufaddal Mamawala2, Jonathan I Epstein3, Patricia Landis4, Katarzyna J Macura5, Demetrios N Simopoulos4, H Ballentine Carter4, Michael A Gorin5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred management option for most men with grade group (GG) 1 prostate cancer (PCa). Questions persist regarding long-term outcomes and the optimal approach to AS.
OBJECTIVE: To determine survival and metastatic outcomes in AS patients. Secondary objectives were to measure the cumulative incidence and association of patient-level factors on biopsy grade reclassification. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, active, open-enrollment cohort study was conducted from 1995 through July 2018 at a tertiary-care academic institution. Patients with very-low-risk or low-risk PCa were enrolled. INTERVENTION: AS with semiannual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination, serial prostate biopsy, and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The 10- and 15-yr cumulative incidences of primary and secondary outcomes were determined. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 1818 men were monitored on AS for a median of 5.0yr (interquartile range 2.0-9.0). There were 88 non-PCa deaths, four PCa deaths, and one additional case of metastasis. The cumulative incidence of PCa-specific mortality or metastasis was 0.1% (95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.6%) at both 10 and 15yr. The 5-, 10-, and 15-yr cumulative incidences of biopsy grade reclassification were 21%, 30%, and 32%, respectively. On multivariable analysis, biopsy grade reclassification was associated with older age, African-American race, PSA density, and increased cancer volume on biopsy, and men who underwent mpMRI prior to enrollment were less likely to undergo grade reclassification. Our selection and monitoring are more stringent than many other contemporary AS programs.
CONCLUSIONS: In a large, single-institution, prospective AS cohort, the risk of cancer death or metastasis was <1% over long-term follow-up. Consistent with clinical guidelines, these data support the use of AS for the management of most men diagnosed with GG1 PCa. PATIENT
SUMMARY: This study investigated long-term outcomes in patients with grade group 1 prostate cancer managed with active surveillance (AS). Ten years after enrolling in AS, the risk of metastasis or death from prostate cancer was <1%, while 48% of men switched to treatment. Patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)/ultrasound-fusion targeted biopsy prior to enrollment were less likely to experience biopsy grade reclassification during follow-up, suggesting a role for mpMRI as part of a comprehensive risk assessment to confirm AS eligibility. These findings support the safety of AS in most men with grade group 1 prostate cancer, but specific outcomes may differ in programs with less intensive monitoring.
Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; Low-risk prostate cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate biopsy; Prostate-specific antigen; Very-low-risk prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31918957     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.12.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  30 in total

1.  Combined MRI-targeted Plus Systematic Confirmatory Biopsy Improves Risk Stratification for Patients Enrolling on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

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

2.  Serial Molecular Profiling of Low-grade Prostate Cancer to Assess Tumor Upgrading: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Authors:  Simpa S Salami; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Srinivas Nallandhighal; Tonye A Jones; Scott Brockman; Fuad F Elkhoury; Selena Bazzi; Komal R Plouffe; Javed Siddiqui; Chia-Jen Liu; Lakshmi P Kunju; Todd M Morgan; Shyam Natarajan; Philip S Boonstra; Lauren Sumida; Scott A Tomlins; Aaron M Udager; Anthony E Sisk; Leonard S Marks; Ganesh S Palapattu
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 3.  Progression on active surveillance for prostate cancer in Black men: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hari T Vigneswaran; Luke Mittelstaedt; Alessio Crippa; Martin Eklund; Adriana Vidal; Stephen J Freedland; Michael R Abern
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 4.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes.

Authors:  Colton H Walker; Kathryn A Marchetti; Udit Singhal; Todd M Morgan
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Should Grade Group 1 (GG1) be called cancer?

Authors:  Craig V Labbate; Gladell P Paner; Scott E Eggener
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Impact of Decipher Biopsy testing on clinical outcomes in localized prostate cancer in a prospective statewide collaborative.

Authors:  Randy A Vince; Ralph Jiang; Daniel E Spratt; Todd M Morgan; Ji Qi; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Rebecca Takele; Felix Y Feng; Susan Linsell; Anna Johnson; Sughand Shetty; Patrick Hurley; David C Miller; Arvin George; Khurshid Ghani; Fionna Sun; Mariana Seymore; Robert T Dess; William C Jackson; Matthew Schipper
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 5.554

7.  Development and Validation of a Clinical Prognostic Stage Group System for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using Disease-Specific Mortality Results From the International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate.

Authors:  Robert T Dess; Krithika Suresh; Michael J Zelefsky; Stephen J Freedland; Brandon A Mahal; Matthew R Cooperberg; Brian J Davis; Eric M Horwitz; Martha K Terris; Christopher L Amling; William J Aronson; Christopher J Kane; William C Jackson; Jason W D Hearn; Curtiland Deville; Theodore L DeWeese; Stephen Greco; Todd R McNutt; Daniel Y Song; Yilun Sun; Rohit Mehra; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Todd M Morgan; Paul L Nguyen; Felix Y Feng; Vidit Sharma; Phuoc T Tran; Bradley J Stish; Thomas M Pisansky; Nicholas G Zaorsky; Fabio Ynoe Moraes; Alejandro Berlin; Antonio Finelli; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Alberto Briganti; Peter R Carroll; R Jeffrey Karnes; Michael W Kattan; Matthew J Schipper; Daniel E Spratt
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 31.777

8.  PSA Density Help to Identify Patients With Elevated PSA Due to Prostate Cancer Rather Than Intraprostatic Inflammation: A Prospective Single Center Study.

Authors:  Salvatore M Bruno; Ugo G Falagario; Nicola d'Altilia; Marco Recchia; Vito Mancini; Oscar Selvaggio; Francesca Sanguedolce; Francesco Del Giudice; Martina Maggi; Matteo Ferro; Angelo Porreca; Alessandro Sciarra; Ettore De Berardinis; Carlo Bettocchi; Gian Maria Busetto; Luigi Cormio; Giuseppe Carrieri
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 9.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Daniela K Shill; Monique J Roobol; Behfar Ehdaie; Andrew J Vickers; Sigrid V Carlsson
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-06

Review 10.  Surgical management of high-risk, localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Lamont J Wilkins; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Debasish Sundi; Ashley E Ross; Dominic Grimberg; Eric A Klein; Brian F Chapin; Yaw A Nyame
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.