Active surveillance criteria in the age of targeted biopsies.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 116-116
Author(s):  
Jonathan Bloom ◽  
Graham R. Hale ◽  
Kareem Rayn ◽  
Samuel Gold ◽  
Vladimir Valera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Median Time ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Management Strategy ◽  
Intramural Research Program ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Mri Guided ◽  
Primary Management ◽  
Targeted Biopsies

116 Background: Many urologists are now using active surveillance (AS) to manage patients with low-risk prostate cancer. A variety of criteria have been proposed to select patients for AS. A key feature of these criteria is Gleason Group as determined by systematic or “random” biopsies (SB). In this study, we examined the progression of Gleason Group (GG) detected only on SB compared to patients with positive MRI-fusion or “targeted” biopsies (FB). Methods: A prospectively maintained database was queried for all patients who underwent an MRI guided FB and SB from 2007 to 2016 and chose AS as their primary management strategy. Patents with GG 1 or 2 were eligible. Patients were then followed with yearly PSA, exam, MRI and biopsy if warranted. FBs were reviewed to determine GG progression. We divided patients into those who had cancer detected on SB only and those who had positive FBs with or without a positive SB. Results: A total of 162 patients met our criteria with 73 having an initial positive FB and 89 having cancer only on SB and a negative FB. Median follow-up was 27.62 (4.14 – 96.56) and 33.83 (3.45-99.84) months, respectively. The two groups were similar in age (64.49 ± 6.57 vs. 62.08 ± 6.92 years, p = 0.03) and PSA (6.23 ± 4.23 vs. 5.67 ± 3.98 ng/ml, p = 0.39). The median time to pathologic progression for GG 1 patients with initial FB positive was 53.88 months and those with GG 1 on initial SB was 80.81 months (p = 0.003). The median time to pathologic progression for GG 2 patients with initial FB positive was 36.26 months and those with GG 2 on initial SB was 76.01 months (p = 0.099). Conclusions: Previously accepted AS criteria have been based on SBs. However, those patients placed on AS after a positive FB progressed fast than cancer detected only on SB. With MRI and FBs more routinely used in clinical practice, clinicians could use this information from FBs to better stratify and closely monitor patients during AS. This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, NIH.

Active surveillance of prostate cancer in African-Americans during the MRI era.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 108-108
Author(s):  
Jonathan Bloom ◽  
Samuel Gold ◽  
Graham R. Hale ◽  
Kareem Rayn ◽  
Vladimir Valera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Aggressive Disease ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Of Progression ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Primary Management

108 Background: Many patients with low-risk prostate cancer are encouraged by their physicians to pursue active surveillance (AS). AS has increasingly been utilized, however there remains anxiety by patients and their physicians that more aggressive disease will be missed and allowed to progress. African-American (AA) patients may present with more aggressive disease and higher rates of upgrading at the time of radical prostatectomy. Due to these factors, physicians may be hesitant to recommend AS to AA patients. We examined the role of AS in these patients in the era of MRI targeted biopsies. Methods: A prospectively maintained database was queried for all patients who underwent an MRI guided fusion biopsy from 2007 to 2016 and chose AS as their primary management strategy. Patents with Gleason Group (GG) 1 or 2 were eligible. Patients were then followed with yearly PSA, exam, MRI and biopsy if warranted. MRI Fusion biopsies were reviewed to determine any GG progression. Results: A total of 19 AA and 143 non-AA patients were reviewed with median follow up times of 31.63 (15.42 -89.50) and 30.87 (3.45 – 99.85) months, respectively. AA and non-AA patients had similar baseline PSA values (6.08 ± 2.93 vs. 5.89 ± 4.23, p = 0.85), proportion of GG 1 (15.89% vs 21.68%, p = 0.55) and PSA density (0.103 ± 0.041 vs. 0.123 ± 0.041, p = 0.36. However, AA patients did present at an earlier age (58.89 ± 6.64 vs. 63.69 ± 6.64, p = 0.004). A total of 8/19 (42.1%) AA and 46/143 (32.2%) non-AA had GG upgrading while on AS, p = 0.34. The median time until progression for AA and non-AA patients was 60.76 and 77.42 months, p = 0.68. Conclusions: In our study, AA men did begin AS at an earlier age than non-AA men. While both groups had statistically similar rates of progression, the relative risk of progression was higher in the AA cohort during this time period. Therefore, in the era of MRI and fusion biopsies we are better able to detect upgrading and somewhat mitigate the the risks associated with upgrading during AS irrespective of race but larger studies are needed to determine whether there are meaningful differences in the rates of progression between AA and non-AA men. This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, NIH.

scholarly journals MP48-17 DO PROGRESSION RATES ON FOLLOW UP BIOPSY OVER TIME DIFFER BETWEEN MEN WITH VERY LOW RISK AND LOW RISK PROSTATE CANCER ON ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE?

2019 ◽  
Vol 201 (Supplement 4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Srinath Kotamarti* ◽  
Andrew Wood ◽  
Alyssa Yee ◽  
Daniel Rabinowitz ◽  
Allison Marziliano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Over Time

Perspectives of health care professionals on active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 81-81
Author(s):  
Fred Saad ◽  
Kittie Pang ◽  
Margaret Fitch ◽  
Veronique Ouellet ◽  
Simone Chevalier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Radiation Oncologists ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer

81 Background: Active surveillance has gained widespread acceptance as a safe approach for patients with low risk prostate cancer. Despite presenting several advantages for both patients and the health care system, active surveillance is not adopted by all eligible patients. In this study, we evaluated the factors that influence physicians to recommend active surveillance and the barriers that impact adherence to this approach. Methods: We conducted five focus groups with a total of 48 health care providers (HCP) including family physicians, urologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, fellows, and residents/medical students. These participants were all providing care for men with low risk prostate cancer and had engaged in conversations with men and their families about active surveillance. The experience of these HCP from academic hospitals in four Canadian provinces was captured. A content and theme analysis was performed on the verbatim transcripts to understand HCP decisions in proposing active surveillance and reveal the facilitators that affect the adherence to this approach. Results: Participants agreed that active surveillance is a suitable approach for low risk prostate cancer patients, but expressed concerns on the rapidly evolving and non-standardized guidelines for patient follow-up. They raised the need for additional tools to appropriately identify the patients best suited for active surveillance. Collaborations between urologists, radiation-oncologists, and medical oncologists were favoured, however, the role of general practitioners remained controversial once patients were referred to a specialist. Conclusions: Integration of more reliable tools and/or markers, and more specific guidelines for patient follow-up would help both patients and physicians in the decision-making for active surveillance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document