The Long-Term Risks of Metastases in Men on Active Surveillance for Early Stage Prostate Cancer. Reply.

1 Background: Active surveillance (AS) is an accepted management strategy for localized prostate cancer. However, the rate of pathological upgrading has not been well described in mature study cohorts. Furthermore, concern exists over the possibility of prostate cancer dedifferentiation with time in patients on AS. Methods: Patients in our prospectively collected AS database with at least one repeat prostate biopsy were included. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the proportion of patients upgraded (Gleason 6 to 3+4 or higher, Gleason 3+4 to 4+3 or higher) with time from diagnostic biopsy. Results: 593 of 862 patients in our cohort had at least one repeat biopsy. Median follow-up was 6.4 years (max. 20.2 years). The total number of biopsies ranged from 2 to 6. 20% of patients were intermediate risk, 0.3 % high risk, all others low risk. 31.2% of patients were upgraded during active surveillance. The proportion of patients upgraded increased with time, suggesting prostate cancer dedifferentiation occurred at a rate of 1.0%/year (95%CI -0.12 to 2.16%/year). The estimated rate of increase was 2.5 times higher in patients with intermediate risk disease at diagnosis (rate 1.9%/year, 95%CI -0.7-4.6) compared with those with low risk disease (rate 0.75%/year, 95%CI -0.5-2.0). Further analysis is underway. 62% of upgraded patients (n=114) went on to have active treatment. Patients who were upgraded and treated had significantly greater PSA velocities (median 1.2 ng/ml/y vs 0.42 ng/ml/y, p=0.01) and significantly higher Gleason scores when upgraded, than those who remained on surveillance (21.8% vs 2.8% Gleason 8-10, p<0.01). Conclusions: This is the largest re-biopsy cohort, with long-term follow-up, described to date, enabling the first estimates of prostate cancer dedifferentiation in patients on AS. Dedifferentiation rates appear higher in patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer compared with those who are low risk at baseline.

Download Full-text

Active surveillance for early stage prostate cancer: What do men and their partners think?

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2016.34.3_suppl.95 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽

pp. 95-95

Author(s):

Jinping Xu ◽

Arun Mallapareddi ◽

Julie Ruterbusch ◽

Elyse Reamer ◽

Susan Eggly

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Focus Groups ◽

Active Surveillance ◽

Early Stage ◽

Treatment Decision ◽

Low Risk ◽

Physical And Mental Health ◽

Current Function ◽

Physician Trust ◽

Qualitative Thematic Analysis

95 Background: Despite growing recognition over the last decade that active surveillance (AS) is a reasonable management option for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (LPC), only a minority of men choose AS. This study examines the conceptualizations, experiences, and reasons for choosing AS among men with LPC and their partners. Methods: We conducted three focus groups with men with LPC who had chosen AS (7 black, 5 white) and two focus groups with their partners (all women, 2 black, 4 white). Men were identified from a cancer registry or from an academic urologists’ practice. Focus groups were video/audio recorded, transcribed and analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Results: Men’s median time on AS was 18 months (range 6-72) and median age was 61 years (range 47-71). Men used many different terms (mostly “wait and see”) to describe similar AS protocols. AS was seen as delaying unnecessary treatment and keeping current function with curable treatment available later if needed. Black men mentioned concerns that some physicians profit by providing unnecessary treatments. Reasons for choosing AS included seeing their cancer as “small” or “low-risk” and trusting their physician’s advice/monitoring, despite reported concerns about PSA being an unreliable test and painful biopsies. Men recognized, but were comfortable with, the small but real threat their cancer could grow. Men found they had to justify their choice to other family members, even when their partners were supportive. Partners saw themselves as very involved and influential in the treatment decision. They were comfortable with AS because of their trust in physicians. Partners believed they know their husband’s physical and mental health better than the men themselves. Conclusions: Physician trust and description of the cancer as low-risk were the most cited reasons for adopting AS. Emphasizing the low-risk nature of the cancer and enhancing physician trust may increase the acceptability of AS.

Download Full-text