scholarly journals Verzögerte Prostatektomie nach Active Surveillance – eine prospektive Patientenbeobachtung

Der Urologe ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zaid Al-Kailani ◽  
Johannes Linxweiler ◽  
Stefan Siemer ◽  
Michael Stöckle ◽  
Matthias Saar
Keyword(s):  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Psychische Belastung

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Die psychische Belastung und die ständigen klinischen Kontrollen unter Active Surveillance (AS) sind als Nebenwirkungen der Therapie nicht zu vernachlässigen. Daher stellt die erfolgreiche Umsetzung des Konzepts der AS in der Praxis eine Herausforderung für Patienten und Behandler dar. Material und Methoden In dieser Arbeit wird ein monozentrisches Patientenkollektiv mit verzögerter radikaler Prostatektomie (vRP) nach AS hinsichtlich ihrer klinischen Charakteristika, den Gründen für einen Abbruch der AS sowie dem Auftreten einer ungünstigen Pathologie (UP) im Vergleich zu einer gematchten Kohorte mit sofortiger RP analysiert. p-Werte wurden mit χ2-Test berechnet. Ergebnisse Aus einer vRP-Gruppe (n = 74) und einer Vergleichsgruppe mit sofortiger RP (n = 214) setzen sich 288 Patienten zusammen. Nach einem medianen Follow-up von 21 Monaten wurde einer RP durchgeführt. Eine UP im RP-Präparat (Gleason-Score ≥ 7b, ≥ pT3a, R1 oder N+) wurde signifikant häufiger in der vRP-Gruppe als in der gematchten Kontrollgruppe beobachtet (45 % vs. 29 %, p = <0,001). Schlussfolgerung Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen viele Defizite bei der Anwendung von AS in der Praxis auf. Die onkologische Sicherheit ist im klinischen Alltag unter Anwendung der bisherigen Beobachtungsmaßnahmen noch unzureichend. Daher erscheint es wichtig, zukünftig in AS-Programme eingeschleuste Patienten sorgfältiger auszuwählen, diese noch stringenter anzubinden und bildmorphologische (mpMRT) sowie in Zukunft auch molekulardiagnostische Methoden zu implementieren, um der AS mehr Sicherheit verleihen.

scholarly journals Natural history of prostate cancer on active surveillance: stratification by MRI using the PRECISE recommendations in a UK cohort

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Giganti ◽  
Armando Stabile ◽  
Vasilis Stavrinides ◽  
Elizabeth Osinibi ◽  
Adam Retter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
Clinical Progression ◽  
Radiological Progression ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Psa Density

Abstract Objectives The PRECISE recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) include repeated measurement of each lesion, and attribution of a PRECISE radiological progression score for the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. We aimed to compare the PRECISE score with clinical progression in patients who are managed using an MRI-led AS protocol. Methods A total of 553 patients on AS for low- and intermediate-risk PCa (up to Gleason score 3 + 4) who had two or more MRI scans performed between December 2005 and January 2020 were included. Overall, 2161 scans were retrospectively re-reported by a dedicated radiologist to give a PI-RADS v2 score for each scan and assess the PRECISE score for each follow-up scan. Clinical progression was defined by histological progression to ≥ Gleason score 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Group 3) and/or initiation of active treatment. Progression-free survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test was used to assess differences between curves. Results Overall, 165/553 (30%) patients experienced the primary outcome of clinical progression (median follow-up, 74.5 months; interquartile ranges, 53–98). Of all patients, 313/553 (57%) did not show radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3), of which 296/313 (95%) had also no clinical progression. Of the remaining 240/553 patients (43%) with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5), 146/240 (61%) experienced clinical progression (p < 0.0001). Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) showed a trend to an increase in PSA density. Conclusions Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. Key Points • Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. • Clinical progression was almost always detectable in patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS. • Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS showed a trend to an increase in PSA density.

scholarly journals Changes in Prostate Cancer Grade on Serial Biopsy in Men Undergoing Active Surveillance

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (20) ◽  
pp. 2795-2800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sima P. Porten ◽  
Jared M. Whitson ◽  
Janet E. Cowan ◽  
Matthew R. Cooperberg ◽  
Katsuto Shinohara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Sampling Error ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Extended Period ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Gleason Grade

Purpose Active surveillance is now considered a viable treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, little is known regarding changes in Gleason grade on serial biopsies over an extended period of time. Patients and Methods Men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1998 and 2009 who elected active surveillance as initial treatment, with 6 or more months of follow-up and a minimum of six cores at biopsy, were included in analysis. Upgrading and downgrading were defined as an increase or decrease in primary or secondary Gleason score. Means and frequency tables were used to describe patient characteristics, and treatment-free survival rates were determined by life-table product limit estimates. Results Three hundred seventy-seven men met inclusion criteria. Mean age at diagnosis was 61.9 years. Fifty-three percent of men had prostate-specific antigen of 6 ng/mL or less, and 94% had Gleason score of 6 or less. A majority of men were cT1 (62%), had less than 33% of biopsy cores involved (80%), and were low risk (77%) at diagnosis. Median number of cores taken at diagnostic biopsy was 13, mean time to follow-up was 18.5 months, and 29% of men had three or more repeat biopsies. Overall, 34% (129 men) were found to have an increase in Gleason grade. The majority of men who experienced an upgrade (81%) did so by their second repeat biopsy. Conclusion A proportion of men experience an upgrade in Gleason score while undergoing active surveillance. Men who experience early upgrading likely represent initial sampling error, whereas later upgrading may reflect tumor dedifferentiation.

Prostate-Specific Antigen Kinetics During Follow-Up Are an Unreliable Trigger for Intervention in a Prostate Cancer Surveillance Program

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (17) ◽  
pp. 2810-2816 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley E. Ross ◽  
Stacy Loeb ◽  
Patricia Landis ◽  
Alan W. Partin ◽  
Jonathan I. Epstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Surveillance Program

Purpose To assess the predictive ability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) velocity (PSAV) and doubling time (PSADT) for biopsy progression and adverse pathology at prostatectomy among men with low-risk prostate cancer enrolled on an active-surveillance program. Methods We evaluated 290 men who met criteria for active surveillance (ie, PSA density < 0.15 ng/mL/cm3 and Gleason score ≤ 6 with no pattern ≥ 4, involving ≤ 2 cores with cancer, and ≤ 50% involvement of any core by cancer) with two or more serial PSA measurements after diagnosis from 1994 to 2008. Follow-up included twice-yearly digital rectal exam and PSA measurements and yearly surveillance biopsy. Treatment was recommended for biopsy progression (ie, Gleason score ≥ 7, or > 2 positive cores, or > 50% core involvement). Sensitivity and specificity of postdiagnostic PSAV and PSADT were explored by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results Overall, 188 (65%) men remained on active surveillance, and 102 (35%) developed biopsy progression at a median follow-up of 2.9 years. PSADT was not significantly associated with subsequent adverse biopsy findings (P = .83), and PSAV was marginally significant (P = .06). No PSAV or PSADT cut point had both high sensitivity and specificity (area under the curve, 0.61 and 0.59, respectively) for biopsy progression. In those who eventually underwent radical prostatectomy, PSAV (P = .79) and PSADT (P = .87) were not associated with the presence of unfavorable surgical pathology. Conclusion Postdiagnostic PSA kinetics do not reliably predict adverse pathology and should not be used to replace annual surveillance biopsy for monitoring men on active surveillance.

Changes in Gleason score grading on serial follow-up biopsies in prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 139-143
Author(s):  
A. Guijarro ◽  
V. Hernández ◽  
B. López ◽  
C. Capitán ◽  
E. Pérez-Fernández ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score

scholarly journals Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can exclude prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance: a retrospective cohort study

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (11) ◽  
pp. 6042-6051 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Ullrich ◽  
C. Arsov ◽  
M. Quentin ◽  
F. Mones ◽  
A. C. Westphalen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Tumor Progression ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Cancer Progression ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Minimum Interval ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Objectives To assess the ability of multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) of the prostate to exclude prostate cancer (PCa) progression during monitoring patients on active surveillance (AS). Methods One hundred forty-seven consecutive patients on AS with mp-MRI (T2WI, DWI, DCE-MRI) at 3T were initially enrolled. Fifty-five received follow-up mp-MRI after a minimum interval of 12 months and subsequent targeted MR/US fusion-guided biopsy (FUS-GB) plus concurrent systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS-GB) biopsy as reference standard. Primary endpoint was the negative predictive value (NPV) of the follow-up mp-MRI to exclude histopathologic tumor progression using PRECISE recommendations. Secondary endpoints were the positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, Gleason score (GS) upgrades, and comparison of biopsy method. Results Of 55 patients, 29 (53%) had a GS upgrade on re-biopsy. All 29 patients showed a tumor progression on follow-up mp-MRI. Fifteen of 55 patients (27%) displayed signs of tumor progression, but had stable GS on re-biopsy. None of the 11 patients (20%) without signs of progression on follow-up mp-MRI had a GS upgrade on re-biopsy. The NPV was 100%, PPV was 66%, sensitivity was 100%, and specificity 42%. FUS-GB resulted in GS upgrade significantly more often (n = 28; 51%) compared with TRUS-GB (n = 12; 22%; p < 0.001). Conclusions (Follow-up) Mp-MRI can reliably exclude PCa progression in patients on AS. Standard serial re-biopsies might be waived if follow-up mp-MRIs are stable. Over 60% of patients with signs of tumor progression on mp-MRI during AS had a GS upgrade on re-biopsy. Targeted re-biopsies should be performed if cancer progression or higher-grade PCa is suspected on mp-MRI. Key Points • None of the patients with unsuspicious mp-MRI had a GS upgrade in re-biopsy and mp-MRI might replace serial biopsies in these cases • More than 60% of patients with mp-MRI signs of tumor progression had subsequent Gleason score (GS) upgrades • Targeted re-biopsies should be performed in case of higher GS cancer suspicion on mp-MRI

Cautionary tale of active surveillance in intermediate-risk patients: Overall and cause-specific survival in the Sunnybrook experience.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 163-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hima Bindu Musunuru ◽  
Laurence Klotz ◽  
Danny Vespirini ◽  
Liying Zhang ◽  
Alexandre Mamedov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
P Value ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Cause Specific Survival

163 Background: To document the long-term outcomes of intermediate risk (IR) prostate cancer patients managed on active surveillance (AS) protocol in a single institute. Methods: Patients(pts) with PSA >10ng/ml or Gleason score 7 or clinical stage T2b/2c were identified from a prospectively collected database of 945 patients managed on AS between 1995 and 2013. Intervention was offered to those pts with a PSA doubling time of < 3 years, Gleason score or clinical progression.Overall survival (OS), cause-specific survival (CSS) for IR and low risk (LR) pts were analyzed as well as metastasis free survival (MFS) and treatment-free survival (TFS) for IR pts. Results: 237 (23.9%) pts had IR disease, with a median follow up of 6.9 years (IQR 3.89, 10.85) .708 pts had LR cancer with a median follow up of 6.4 years (IQR 3.76, 9.03). 61.2% of the IR cohort was older than 70 years. 86 IR pts (36.3%) received treatment (mainly radiation). The median treatment free interval for IR pts was 12.3 years (range 10.1 - 19.8). 33 IR patients developed biochemical failure and 17 developed metastatic disease [11 IR pts(4.6%) and 6 LR pts(0.8%)].The 10 and 15year OS was 68.4% and 50.3% for IR pts;83.6% and 68.8% for LR pts (p value <0.0001).Similarly 10 and 15 year CSS was 95.5% and 88.5% for IR ; 98.2% and 96.3% for LR pts (p value=0.006).The hazard ratio for IR pts versus LR pts was 2.08 for OS and 3.75 for CSS.IR pts had 3.75 times higher chance of dying from prostate cancer when compared to LR pts (Table). 10 year MFS and TFS were 92.1% (87.4-97.1%) and 58.5% (51.6-66.4%) in the IR cohort. Survival outcomes did not vary according to the year of patient enrollment. Conclusions: AS for intermediate risk prostate has significantly lower OS and CSS compared to low risk patients and therefore extreme caution should be exercised if it were to be implemented in intermediate risk patients. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals A novel predictor of clinical progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guan Hee Tan ◽  
Antonio Finelli ◽  
Ardalan Ahmad ◽  
Marian Wettstein ◽  
Alexandre Zlotta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Roc Curves ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Clinical Progression

Introduction: Active surveillance (AS) is standard of care in low-risk prostate cancer (PC). This study describes a novel total cancer location (TCLo) density metric and aims to determine its performance in predicting clinical progression (CP) and grade progression (GP).     Methods: This was a retrospective study of patients on AS after confirmatory biopsy (CBx). We excluded patients with Gleason ≥7 at CBx and <2 years follow-up. TCLo was the number of locations with positive cores at diagnosis (DBx) and CBx. TCLo density was TCLo / prostate volume (PV). CP was progression to any active treatment while GP occurred if Gleason ≥7 was identified on repeat biopsy or surgical pathology. Independent predictors of time to CP or GP were estimated with Cox regression. Kaplan-Meier analysis compared progression-free survival curves between TCLo density groups. Test characteristics of TCLo were explored with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.     Results: We included 181 patients who had CBx between 2012-2015, and met inclusion criteria. The mean age of patients was 62.58 years (SD=7.13) and median follow-up was 60.9 months (IQR=23.4). A high TCLo density score (>0.05) was independently associated with time to CP (HR 4.70, 95% CI: 2.62-8.42, p<0.001), and GP (HR 3.85, 95% CI: 1.91-7.73, p<0.001). ROC curves showed TCLo density has greater area under the curve than number of positive cores at CBx in predicting progression.     Conclusion: TCLo density is able to stratify patients on AS for risk of CP and GP. With further validation, it could be added to the decision-making algorithm in AS for low-risk localized PC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document