Occurrence of pathologic stage T3 disease at radical prostatectomy with isup grade group 1 (Gleason 3+3=6) prostate cancer.

21 Background: Treatment of ISUP Grade Group 1 (Gleason 3+3 = 6) disease continues to evolve in the modern era. We examined our surgical database to investigate patterns of behavior in this pathologic subset. Methods: We reviewed the results of 1127 consecutive radical prostatectomies performed by our surgeons from 2012−2015 at various community and academic medical centers in Chicagoland. Specifically, we examined the ISUP Grade Group 1 (Gleason 3+3 = 6) patients in our database, 314 patients overall. Results: A review of our database revealed that of ISUP Grade Group 1 (Gleason 3+3 = 6) patients (n = 314), only 3.82% had pT3 disease (11 patients stage pT3a and 1 stage pT3b). The only patient of these 12 to have lymphovascular invasion (LVI) was the singular pT3b patient. Overall, ISUP Grade Group 1 (Gleason 3+3 = 6) pT3 disease represents only 1.06% of all prostatectomies in our database. Conclusions: In our large prostatectomy cohort, ISUP Grade Group 1 (Gleason 3+3 = 6) prostate cancer was rarely associated with extra−prostatic extension (pT3) or lymphovascular invasion (LVI), suggesting that it has very low metastatic potential. These findings give further support to the trend of increased utilization of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer.

Download Full-text

Optimizing active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: Characterizing provider and patient perspectives.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2020.39.28_suppl.250 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽

pp. 250-250

Author(s):

Archana Radhakrishnan ◽

Lalita Subramanian ◽

Aaron Rankin ◽

Ted A. Skolarus ◽

Daniela Wittmann ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Active Surveillance ◽

Management Strategy ◽

Low Risk ◽

Barriers And Facilitators ◽

Academic Medical Centers ◽

Medical Centers ◽

Academic Medical ◽

Risk Prostate Cancer ◽

Low Risk Prostate Cancer

250 Background: The number of men on active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer is rapidly increasing. While AS requires routine clinical exams, labs, imaging, and prostate biopsies, many men do not receive all recommended components. Understanding the perspectives of key stakeholders regarding recommended surveillance is critical to ensuring the optimization of AS as a management strategy. Methods: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 15 men with low-risk prostate cancer who were on AS as their primary management strategy and their partners, and 15 urologists and 19 primary care providers (PCPs) with experience in AS management between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), an implementation science framework developed to understand determinants of behaviors and to inform the design of interventions, to guide our interview guide. Questions assessed knowledge, barriers and facilitators, and preferences for provider roles in AS management. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into TDF domains and constructs. Three independent coders iteratively developed and used a shared coding framework. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group. Results: Our study included 15 men (on AS between 1-16 years), 5 partners, 15 urologists (3 female, 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers), and 19 PCPs (9 female, 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers). The TDF domain of “knowledge” and the construct, “barriers and facilitators” were most commonly reported as factors impacting receipt of recommended surveillance across all groups. While urologists were most knowledgeable about AS, PCPs noted limitations in understanding for whom AS is recommended, and what it entails. Patients who had made an effort to research or learn about AS found that this knowledge enabled them to be proactive about receiving all recommended components. Urologists and patients noted several common procedural barriers to receiving recommended surveillance, including pain with repeated biopsies, and becoming lost to follow-up. Patients and PCPs were uncertain about what tests were needed and when. Urologists were concerned about PCP knowledge while PCPs described insufficient communication from urologists as barriers to shared care. Procedural facilitators included electronic medical records (EMR) to remind providers and patients of frequency and timing of tests. Conclusions: Key opportunities for optimizing AS include improving patient and PCP knowledge about the components and delivery of AS, facilitating communication between providers, and leveraging EMR to ensure those on AS are followed. The development of an intervention that combines several of these components will be critical to ensuring men on AS receive the recommended surveillance.

Download Full-text

Evidence for Focal Grade Group Progression in Low-risk Prostate Cancer

European Urology ◽

10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.022 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Michael Fraser

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Low Risk ◽

Grade Group ◽

Risk Prostate Cancer ◽

Low Risk Prostate Cancer

Download Full-text

When can active surveillance be less active? Prediction of long-term nonreclassification for men with low-risk prostate cancer.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2018.36.6_suppl.140 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽

pp. 140-140

Author(s):

Matthew R. Cooperberg ◽

Anna V Faino ◽

Lisa F Newcomb ◽

Peter Carroll ◽

James T Kearns ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Active Surveillance ◽

Management Strategy ◽

Low Risk ◽

Gleason Grade ◽

Grade Group ◽

Dynamic Risk ◽

Risk Prostate Cancer ◽

Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽

Dynamic Risk Prediction

140 Background: Active surveillance is endorsed as the preferred management strategy for most men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, nearly all active surveillance protocols entail prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing every 3-6 months, and prostate biopsies every 1-2 years. For many men with indolent tumors, this regimen is overly intense, and exposes men to the discomfort, risks, and costs of repeated biopsies. We aimed to determine if some men can be safely selected for a less intense surveillance regimen by predicting the probability of non-reclassification over the next 4 years of surveillance. Methods: Data were collected from men in the multicenter Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS), in which PSAs are collected q3 months and biopsies performed 12 months of diagnosis and then every 2 years. For inclusion in this study, men had to have undergone ≤ 1 follow up biopsy, and have Gleason grade group 1 at diagnosis. Reclassification was defined as increase in Gleason grade group on subsequent biopsy; those without reclassification were censored at last study contact, treatment or 2 years after last biopsy. A dynamic risk prediction model based on a Cox regression with robust variance estimates was used to construct and test a model predicting non-reclassification. Results: Of 1082 men included, 362 (33%) reclassified and the remaining were censored. The final regression model included percent of biopsy cores involved, prior biopsy history, time since diagnosis, BMI, prostate size, diagnostic PSA, and PSAk (a measure of PSA kinetics). This dynamic risk prediction model was assessed at a measurement time of 1 year after diagnosis, predicting risk of reclassification at 4 years. Men at lowest and highest deciles of this model-based risk faced 6% (95%CI 0-12%) and 73% (55-84%) risks of reclassification within 5 years. For at least 10% of the men in the cohort, the negative predictive value (NPV) for reclassification was 95% or higher. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of men with low-risk prostate cancer can safely be followed with a de-intensified active surveillance protocol, which would improve both the tolerability and cost-effectiveness of this management strategy.

Download Full-text

Low-risk prostate cancer: evaluation of quality of life after surgical treatment and during active observation

Andrology and Genital Surgery ◽

10.17650/1726-9784-2021-22-4-60-67 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 60-67

Author(s):

E. N. Gasanov ◽

E. V. Shpot ◽

A. A. Magomedov ◽

D. V. Chinenov ◽

A. V. Proskura ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Surgical Treatment ◽

Specific Antigen ◽

Low Risk ◽

Sf 36 ◽

Risk Prostate Cancer ◽

Active Observation ◽

Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽

Group 2 ◽

Group 1

The study objective is to improve results of treatment of patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PC).Materials and methods. In the study, comparative analysis of data from 84 patients with low-risk PC was performed: 40 patients were included in the active observation group (group 1) and 44 patients underwent radical prostatectomy (group 2). For evaluation of functional responses the following questionnaires were used: Short Form 36 Health Quality Survey (SF-36), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26). For control of oncological results, tests for prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvic organs with intravenous contrast, and confirmation biopsy of the prostate were preformed.Results. Mean score for the SF-36 questionnaire in the group 1 (active observation) at the beginning of the study was 63.2 ± 11.5 for mental health (MH) and 57.1 ± 9.8 for physical health (PH), while in the group 2 MH score was 63.1± 6.8, PH score was 56.2 ± 8.6. However, 18 months later in the group 1 mean MH score increased to 68.2 ± 10.1, mean PH score to 62.4 ± 7.8; in the group 2 PH score increased insignificantly to 64.2 ± 7.4 and PH score decreased to 54.8 ± 5.4 (p <0.05). IIEF-5 score in the group 1 decreased from 18.8 ± 4.2 to 18.3 ± 4.0, in the group 2 from 19.1 ± 4.3 to 16.9 ± 4.8 (p <0.05). Mean IPSS score insignificantly increased in the group 1 from 9.1 ± 2.1 to 9.3 ± 2.7, while in the group 2 it decreased from 9.2 ± 2.3 to 8.4 ± 1.5 (p <0.05). For the EPIC-26 questionnaire, mean score for all criteria initially was 56.1 ± 5.1 in the group 1 and 54 ± 4.4 in the group 2 (after prostatectomy), and currently it increased to 65 ± 4.6 in the group 1 and decreased to 49 ± 5.4 in the group 2.Two (5 %) patients from the group 1 underwent surgical treatment due to PC progression. One (2.5 %) patient chose surgical treatment due to cancer-related anxiety. Biochemical recurrence with an increase in prostate-specific antigen of 0.29 ± 0.09 ng/ml was observed in 3 (6,8 %) patients in the group 2.Conclusion. Strategy of active observation is the preferred method of care for patients with low-risk PC allowing to preserve high quality of life while surgical treatment should be performed only if necessary.

Download Full-text