Adrian J Waisman Malaret1, Peter Chang1, Kehao Zhu2, Yingye Zheng2, Lisa F Newcomb3, Menghan Liu2, Jesse K McKenney4, James D Brooks5, Peter Carroll6, Atreya Dash7, Christopher P Filson8, Martin E Gleave9, Michael Liss10, Frances M Martin11, Todd M Morgan12, Peter S Nelson13, Daniel W Lin3,7, Andrew A Wagner1. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Biostatistics Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 3. Cancer Prevention Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 4. Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Department of Urology, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 6. Urology Department, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, California. 7. Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 8. Department of Urology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 9. Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. 10. Department of Urology, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, Texas. 11. Urology of Virginia, Virginia Beach, Virginia. 12. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 13. Division of Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Active surveillance (AS) for grade group (GG) 2 patients is not yet well defined. We sought to compare clinical outcomes of men with GG1 and GG2 prostate cancer undergoing AS in a large prospective North American cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were prospectively enrolled in an AS study with protocol-directed followup at 10 centers in the U.S. and Canada. We evaluated time from diagnosis to biopsy grade reclassification and time to treatment. In men treated after initial surveillance, adverse pathology and recurrence were also analyzed. RESULTS: At diagnosis, 154 (9%) had GG2 and 1,574 (91%) had GG1. Five-year reclassification rates were similar between GG2 and GG1 (30% vs 37%, p=0.11). However, more patients with GG2 were treated at 5 years (58% vs 34%, p <0.001) and GG at diagnosis was associated with time to treatment (HR=1.41; p=0.01). Treatment rates were similar in patients who reclassified during AS, but in patients who did not reclassify, those diagnosed with GG2 underwent definitive treatment more often than GG1 (5-year treatment rates 52% and 12%, p <0.0001). In participants who underwent radical prostatectomy after initial surveillance, the adjusted risk of adverse pathology was similar (HR=1.26; p=0.4). Biochemical recurrence within 3 years of treatment for GG2 and GG1 patients was 6% for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients on AS, the rate of definitive treatment is higher after an initial diagnosis of GG2 than GG1. Adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy and short-term biochemical recurrence after definitive treatment were similar between GG2 and GG1.
PURPOSE: Active surveillance (AS) for grade group (GG) 2 patients is not yet well defined. We sought to compare clinical outcomes of men with GG1 and GG2 prostate cancer undergoing AS in a large prospective North American cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were prospectively enrolled in an AS study with protocol-directed followup at 10 centers in the U.S. and Canada. We evaluated time from diagnosis to biopsy grade reclassification and time to treatment. In men treated after initial surveillance, adverse pathology and recurrence were also analyzed. RESULTS: At diagnosis, 154 (9%) had GG2 and 1,574 (91%) had GG1. Five-year reclassification rates were similar between GG2 and GG1 (30% vs 37%, p=0.11). However, more patients with GG2 were treated at 5 years (58% vs 34%, p <0.001) and GG at diagnosis was associated with time to treatment (HR=1.41; p=0.01). Treatment rates were similar in patients who reclassified during AS, but in patients who did not reclassify, those diagnosed with GG2 underwent definitive treatment more often than GG1 (5-year treatment rates 52% and 12%, p <0.0001). In participants who underwent radical prostatectomy after initial surveillance, the adjusted risk of adverse pathology was similar (HR=1.26; p=0.4). Biochemical recurrence within 3 years of treatment for GG2 and GG1 patients was 6% for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients on AS, the rate of definitive treatment is higher after an initial diagnosis of GG2 than GG1. Adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy and short-term biochemical recurrence after definitive treatment were similar between GG2 and GG1.
Authors: Timothy J Wilt; Karen M Jones; Michael J Barry; Gerald L Andriole; Daniel Culkin; Thomas Wheeler; William J Aronson; Michael K Brawer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Selma Masic; Janet E Cowan; Samuel L Washington; Hao G Nguyen; Katsuto Shinohara; Matthew R Cooperberg; Peter R Carroll Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2018-05-24
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Mufaddal Mamawala; Jonathan I Epstein; Patricia Landis; Katarzyna J Macura; Demetrios N Simopoulos; H Ballentine Carter; Michael A Gorin Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Michael A Kozminski; Scott Tomlins; Adam Cole; Udit Singhal; Louis Lu; Ted A Skolarus; Ganesh S Palapattu; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Alon Z Weizer; Rohit Mehra; Brent K Hollenbeck; David C Miller; Chang He; Felix Y Feng; Todd M Morgan Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 3.498
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: Daniel W Lin; Yingye Zheng; Jesse K McKenney; Marshall D Brown; Ruixiao Lu; Michael Crager; Hilary Boyer; Maria Tretiakova; James D Brooks; Atreya Dash; Michael D Fabrizio; Martin E Gleave; Suzanne Kolb; Michael Liss; Todd M Morgan; Ian M Thompson; Andrew A Wagner; Athanasios Tsiatis; Andrea Pingitore; Peter S Nelson; Lisa F Newcomb Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeannette M Schenk; Lisa F Newcomb; Yingye Zheng; Anna V Faino; Kehao Zhu; Yaw A Nyame; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; Atreya Dash; Christopher P Filson; Martin E Gleave; Michael Liss; Francis M Martin; Todd M Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Andrew A Wagner; Daniel W Lin Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Erin Kirkby; Ronald C Chen; Tony Crispino; Joann Fontanarosa; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Greene; Laurence H Klotz; Danil V Makarov; Joel B Nelson; George Rodrigues; Howard M Sandler; Mary Ellen Taplin; Jonathan R Treadwell Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Matthew R Cooperberg; Yingye Zheng; Anna V Faino; Lisa F Newcomb; Kehao Zhu; Janet E Cowan; James D Brooks; Atreya Dash; Martin E Gleave; Frances Martin; Todd M Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Andrew A Wagner; Peter R Carroll; Daniel W Lin Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 31.777