scholarly journals Long-term outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in a community-based setting: results from a prospective non-interventional study

Author(s):  
Jan Herden ◽  
Andreas Schwarte ◽  
Thorsten Werner ◽  
Uwe Behrendt ◽  
Axel Heidenreich ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose To report on long-term outcomes of patients treated with active surveillance (AS) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) in the daily routine setting. Methods HAROW (2008–2013) was a non-interventional, health service research study about the management of localized PCa in the community setting, with 86% of the study centers being office-based urologists. A follow-up examination of all patients who opted for AS as primary treatment was carried out. Overall, cancer-specific, and metastasis-free survival, as well as discontinuation rates, were determined. Results Of 329 patients, 62.9% had very-low- and 21.3% low-risk tumours. The median follow-up was 7.7 years (IQR 4.7–9.1). Twenty-eight patients (8.5%) died unrelated to PCa, of whom 19 were under AS or watchful waiting (WW). Additionally, seven patients (2.1%) developed metastasis. The estimated 10-year overall and metastasis-free survival was 86% (95% CI 81.7–90.3) and 97% (95% CI 94.6–99.3), respectively. One hundred eighty-seven patients (56.8%) discontinued AS changing to invasive treatment: 104 radical prostatectomies (RP), 55 radiotherapies (RT), and 28 hormonal treatments (HT). Another 50 patients switched to WW. Finally, 37.4% remained alive without invasive therapy (22.2% AS and 15.2% WW). Intervention-free survival differed between the risk groups: 47.8% in the very-low-, 33.8% in the low- and 34.6% in the intermediate-/high-risk-group (p = 0.008). On multivariable analysis, PSA-density ≥ 0.2 ng/ml2 was significantly predictive for receiving invasive treatment (HR 2.55; p = 0.001). Conclusion Even in routine care, AS can be considered a safe treatment option. Our results might encourage office-based urologists regarding the implementation of AS and to counteract possible concerns against this treatment option.

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jan Herden ◽  
Andreas Schwarte ◽  
Edith A. Boedefeld ◽  
Lothar Weissbach

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Optimal treatment for incidental prostate cancer (IPC) after surgical treatment for benign prostate obstruction is still debatable. We report on long-term outcomes of IPC patients managed with active surveillance (AS) in a German multicenter study. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> HAROW (2008–2013) was designed as a noninterventional, prospective, health-service research study for patients with localized prostate cancer (≤cT2), including patients with IPC (cT1a/b). A follow-up examination of all patients treated with AS was carried out. Overall, cancer-specific, and metastasis-free survival and discontinuation rates were determined. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of 210 IPC patients, 68 opted for AS and were available for evaluation. Fifty-four patients had cT1a category and 14 cT1b category. Median follow-up was 7.7 years (IQR: 5.7–9.1). Eight patients died of which 6 were still under AS or watchful waiting (WW). No PCa-specific death could be observed. One patient developed metastasis. Twenty-three patients (33.8%) discontinued AS changing to invasive treatment: 12 chose radical prostatectomy, 7 radiotherapy, and 4 hormonal treatment. Another 19 patients switched to WW. The Kaplan-Meier estimated 10-year overall, cancer-specific, metastasis-free, and intervention-free survival was 83.8% (95% CI: 72.2–95.3), 100%, 98.4% (95% CI: 95.3–99.9), and 61.0% (95% CI: 47.7–74.3), respectively. In multivariable analysis, age (RR: 0.97; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001), PSA density ≥0.2 ng/mL<sup>2</sup> (RR: 13.23; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001), and PSA ≥1.0 ng/mL after surgery (RR: 5.19; <i>p</i> = 0.016) were significantly predictive for receiving an invasive treatment. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> In comparison with other AS series with a general low-risk prostate cancer population, our study confirmed the promising survival outcomes for IPC patients, whereas discontinuation rates seem to be lower for IPC. Thus, IPC patients at low risk of progression may be good candidates for AS.


Brachytherapy ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 166-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn Martinez ◽  
Antonino Daidone ◽  
Cristina Gutierrez ◽  
Joan Pera ◽  
Ana Boladeras ◽  
...  

Brachytherapy ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. S185
Author(s):  
Ferran Guedea ◽  
Cristina Gutierrez ◽  
Evelyn Martinez ◽  
Antonino Daidone ◽  
Ferrer Ferran ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1681-1691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Surbhi Shah ◽  
Henry N. Young ◽  
Ewan K. Cobran

The high frequency of treatment-related side effects for men with localized prostate cancer creates uncertainty for treatment outcomes. This study assessed the comparative effectiveness of treatment-related side effects associated with conservative management and cryotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer. A retrospective longitudinal cohort study was conducted, using the linked data of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and Medicare, which included patients diagnosed from 2000 through year 2013, and their Medicare claims information from 2000 through 2014. To compare the differences in baseline characteristics and treatment-related side effects between the study cohorts, χ2 tests were conducted. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the association between treatment selection and side effects. There were 7,998 and 3,051 patients in the conservative management and cryotherapy cohort, respectively. The likelihood of erectile dysfunction, lower urinary tract obstruction, urinary fistula, urinary incontinence, and hydronephrosis was reported to be significantly lower (53%, 35%, 69%, 65%, and 36%, respectively) in the conservative management cohort. Conservative management had a lower likelihood of treatment-related side effects compared to cryotherapy. However, further research is needed to compare other significant long-term outcomes such as costs associated with these treatment choices and quality of life.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document