Considerations for active surveillance in select Gleason grade group 2 patients: A preliminary study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 206-206
Author(s):  
Jillian Egan ◽  
Cheyenne Williams ◽  
Nabila Khondakar ◽  
Luke P. O'Connor ◽  
Michael Daneshvar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
P Value ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Definitive Therapy

206 Background: While active surveillance (AS) has become the preferred management strategy for patients with NCCN very-low and low risk prostate cancer, its use in the setting of intermediate risk disease continues to be controversial. Current guidelines state that AS can be considered in favorable intermediate risk disease, but data on outcomes in this cohort of patients is lacking. We aim to report on our experience with AS of Gleason grade group (GG) 2 at the National Cancer Institute (NCI)/National Institutes of Health (NIH). Methods: Our IRB-approved, institutional database was reviewed for men who enrolled on our AS protocol at NIH with GG2 disease from 2007-2020. All patients received MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy at the time of enrollment, diagnosing or confirming GG2 disease. MRI and PSA were performed annually, and majority of patients underwent annual combined MRI targeted and systematic prostate biopsy. If PSA and MRI were stable, annual biopsy was postponed in several patients based on their preference. Differences in PSA and PSAD at enrollment on AS and at progression were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank test. P value < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: 98 patients with GG2 disease enrolled in AS at NIH. Average age at enrollment was 64 years old and the majority of patients were Caucasian. 36/98(37%) of these patients progressed to GG3 or higher while on AS. Median PSA at time of progression was significantly higher than at the time of enrollment on AS (5.2 [IQR 4.0-8.9] vs 8.5 [IQR 5.8-10.9], z = -3.12, p < 0.01). PSAD was also significantly higher at time of progression (0.12[IQR 0.1-0.16] vs 0.13[IQR 0.10-0.22], z = -2.65, p < 0.01). Highest PIRADS score on MRI was largely unchanged. Median time to progression was 71 months. The majority of patients progressed to GG3, and progression was the trigger for definitive treatment. All patients were alive at the end of the follow up period. Conclusions: AS is a reasonable option for compliant patients diagnosed with GG2 prostate cancer. While a significant percentage of these men will progress on AS, they do so at a median of 71 months, avoiding treatment-related harms of definitive therapy for over 5 years. Further research with larger sample sizes are needed to better evaluate the oncologic outcomes of AS for GG2 disease, as well as predictors of more aggressive disease that may be better served with upfront definitive treatment. [Table: see text]

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 Tumour growth rates of prostate cancer during active surveillance: is there a difference between MRI-visible low and intermediate-risk disease?

2021 ◽  
pp. 20210321
Author(s):  
Francesco Giganti ◽  
Clare Allen ◽  
Vasilis Stavrinides ◽  
Armando Stabile ◽  
Aiman Haider ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Growth Rate ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
Annual Growth Rate ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in lesion volume on serial multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMRI) during active surveillance for prostate cancer. Methods: A total of 160 patients with a targeted biopsy-confirmed visible lesion on mpMRI, stratified by low- and intermediate-risk disease (Gleason Grade Group 1 vs Gleason Grade Group 2), were analysed. The % change per year was calculated using the formula: [(final volume/initial volume) exp (1/interval between scans in years)]-1. Results: There was no significant difference in the annual median percentage change between Gleason Grade Group 1 (18%) and Gleason Grade Group 2 (23%) disease (p = 0.16), and between ≤ 10% (23%) and > 10% (22%) of Gleason pattern 4 (p = 0.78). Assuming a spherical lesion, these changes corresponded to annual increases in mean tumour diameter of 6% and 7% for Gleason Grade Group 1 and Gleason Grade Group 2 respectively, which may be less than the interscan variability of serial mpMRI. Conclusion: In an active surveillance cohort, we did not see a significant difference in the annual growth rate of Gleason Grade Group 1 and 2 tumours. Advances in knowledge: In patients on active surveillance, the measured growth rates for visible tumours in Gleason Grade Groups 1 and 2 were similar. The annual growth rate was small in most cases and this may have implications for the MRI follow-up interval in active surveillance.

Initial results of patients with early-stage prostate cancer on active holistic surveillance.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 19-19
Author(s):  
Aaron Katz ◽  
Andrew S Fontes ◽  
Kaitlin E. Kosinski
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Lifestyle Changes ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Treatment Rate ◽  
Definitive Therapy

19 Background: There is currently no consensus on how active surveillance should be utilized in order to optimize the benefit of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) to prevent overtreatment. Our institution’s protocol, known as Active Holistic Surveillance (AHS) integrates MRI screening in the place of serial biopsies. Nutritional supplements and lifestyle changes are also suggested in order to provide a holistic way to reduce progression. We look to compare definitive treatment rates of our cohort on AHS to other publications in the literature. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 200 patients placed on active surveillance for low and low-intermediate risk PCa under D’Amico criteria from February 2002 to July 2015. Enrollment criteria was defined by clinical stage (T1c), PSA under 20 ng/mL, diagnosis of a Gleason 6 or Gleason 7 with a tumor volume of >50%, and a PSA doubling time of greater than 1 year. The main objective of the study was to evaluate the rate of patients discontinuing AHS to receive definitive therapy and reasons for leaving our AHS protocol. Results: 200 patients (age 44-84 years) have a median follow-up of 40 months (range 4-161). A total of 24 out of 200 patients (12%) moved on to definitive treatment. For patients on AHS before 2010 until 2012, the rates of definitive treatment were 0%. In 2013, 8 patients (4%) received definitive treatment. In 2014, 12 patients (6%) received definitive treatment. In 2015, 4 patients (2%) received definitive treatment to date.The average treatment rate per year is 4%. Reasons for 24 patients discontinuing AHS included biopsy progression (16.67%), MRI progression (29.17%), MRI progression with biopsy confirmation (29.17%), patient preference (20.83%), and 1 patient was deceased due to an unrelated illness (4.17%). Conclusions: Low rates of discontinuation compared to other publications in the literature demonstrate that AHS can be a successful protocol for low-risk and low-intermediate risk PCa patients, and that a holistic approach can be beneficial to active surveillance patients.

scholarly journals Active surveillance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer with PSA 10–20 ng/mL: pathological outcome analysis of a population-level database

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter E. Lonergan ◽  
Chang Wook Jeong ◽  
Samuel L. Washington ◽  
Annika Herlemann ◽  
Scarlett L. Gomez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Outcome Analysis ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer

Abstract Background Active surveillance (AS) is generally recognized as the preferred option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Current guidelines use prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 10–20 ng/mL or low-volume biopsy Gleason grade group (GG) 2 as features that, in part, define the favorable intermediate-risk disease and suggest that AS may be considered for some men in this risk category. Methods We identified 26,548 men initially managed with AS aged <80 years, with clinically localized prostate cancer (cT1-2cN0M0), PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, biopsy GG ≤ 2 with percent positive cores ≤33% and who converted to treatment with radical prostatectomy from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results prostate with the watchful waiting database. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of adverse pathology at RP according to PSA level (<10 vs 10–20 ng/mL) and GG (1 vs 2). Results Of 1731 men with GG 1 disease and PSA 10–20 ng/mL, 382 (22.1%) harbored adverse pathology compared to 2340 (28%) of 8,367 men with GG 2 and a PSA < 10 ng/mL who had adverse pathology at RP. On multivariable analysis, the odds of harboring adverse pathology with a PSA 10–20 ng/mL (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71–2.05, p < 0.001) was less than that of GG 2 (OR 2.56, 95%CI 2.40–2.73, p < 0.001) after adjustment. Conclusions Our results support extending AS criteria more permissively to carefully selected men with PSA 10–20 ng/mL and GG 1 disease.

Relationship of overall survival and the frequency of performing transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate in those patients with low-risk tumors electing active surveillance.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 238-238
Author(s):  
David D. Buethe ◽  
Christopher Russell ◽  
Binglin Yue ◽  
Hui-Yi Lin ◽  
Julio M. Pow-Sang
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Prostatic Biopsy

238 Background: Limited derived benefit from definitive treatment has been observed with respect to prostate cancer−specific mortality (PCSM) in those low−risk disease and only small absolute risk reductions in both overall PCSM and incidence of metastasis have been demonstrated. Thus, active surveillance (AS) strategies have been adopted to monitor for disease progression with intent for intervention at time of disease reclassification. Yet, the timing and frequency of surveillance remain without evidence-based standardization. We assessed the relationship between the frequency of surveillance prostate biopsies and the oncologic outcomes in those patients with low−risk prostate cancer (CaP) managed by AS. Methods: An IRB approved retrospective chart review identified 114 patients placed on AS for their CaP between November of 1997 and November of 2000. Of those, 96 patients meet study inclusion criteria mandating a Gleason sum of < 7, tumor presence in < 4 sextets, involvement of <50% of any single biopsy core. Eligible patients were surveyed by serum PSA, DRE, and surveillance TRUS−guided biopsies at physician determined intervals. Results: At diagnosis, the mean age was 70.3 (SD±5.3) years with a mean PSA value of 8.2 (SD±8.2) ng/dL. While on AS, patients underwent a median of 3.5 (SD±2.02) TRUS−guided biopsies; at a frequency approaching 1 biopsy every 18 months. At a median follow−up of 134.8 months (95%CI: 114.5, 148.7), multivariate analysis found more frequent prostatic biopsy acquisition to be inversely associated a worse prognosis with respect to both progression−free (p<0.0001) and overall survival (p=0.0002). Both progression−free (p<0.0001) and overall survival (p=0.0207) were progressively shorter as the interval between biopsies declined from greater than 2 years, to 1−2 years, and then less than 1 year. Conclusions: No survival advantage was achieved by frequent re−biopsy of the prostate. Patients biopsied more frequently were paradoxically found have poorer survival outcomes.

Change in a 17-gene genomic prostate score over time in men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 124-124
Author(s):  
Michael S. Leapman ◽  
Janet E. Cowan ◽  
Hao Gia Nguyen ◽  
Matthew R. Cooperberg ◽  
Peter Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Pathological Findings ◽  
Clinical Risk ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Over Time

124 Background: A biopsy-based RT-PCR assay (Oncotype DX Prostate Assay) providing a Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) as a measure of tumor aggressiveness has been validated as a predictor of adverse pathologic and oncologic outcomes. We sought to evaluate the change in GPS results among men with favorable-risk prostate cancer (PCa) managed with active surveillance (AS). Methods: We identified men with low and intermediate-clinical risk PCa managed with AS at our institution receiving a minimum of two GPS tests on serial prostate biopsy. GPS ranges from 0 (least) to 100 (most aggressive disease). We described the change in assay results and clinical risk designation over time and reported the subsequent clinical outcome (definitive treatment versus continued AS). For men receiving treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP) the occurrence of adverse pathological findings was defined by the presence of high grade (Gleason pattern ≥ 4+3) or non-organ confined disease ( ≥ pT3a). Results: 31 men were identified who underwent serial GPS testing at a median of 12 months. The median change in GPS was an increase of 1 point (IQR -7, 13). Fourteen (45%) patients experienced an increase in NCCN risk classification, including 3 from very-low to intermediate and 11 from low to intermediate risk. Following serial GPS testing 7 patients (23%) underwent radical prostatectomy. Among surgically treated patients, 3 had adverse pathology due to pT3a disease and the mean change in GPS prior to treatment was an increase of 13 points (IQR -7, 18); all of whom were intermediate clinical risk at the time of surgery. This study was limited by the small sample size and the uncontrolled decision to pursue definitive therapy. Conclusions: Serial change in a tissue based gene expression assay on serial biopsy during AS was non-static. Magnitude of GPS change may identify men at risk for adverse pathological findings, although larger series are required to validate such an endpoint during AS.

Impact of initial treatment selection on clinical outcomes after biochemical failure in radiorecurrent high-risk prostate cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 208-208
Author(s):  
Rebecca Levin-Epstein ◽  
Tahmineh Romero ◽  
Jessica Karen Wong ◽  
Kiri Cook ◽  
Robert Timothy Dess ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
High Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Median Interval

208 Background: Treatment of high risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus brachytherapy (BT) boost (EBRT+BT) has been prospectively associated with lower rates of BCR, albeit potentially with increased toxicity, and retrospectively linked to decreased distant metastasis (DM) and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) compared to EBRT alone. However, it is unclear whether patients who develop BCR following either approach have similar downstream oncologic outcomes. Methods: We identified 706 out of 3820 men with HRPCa treated at 13 institutions from 1998-2015 with EBRT (n=468/2134) or EBRT+BT (n=238/1686) who developed BCR. We compared rates of DM, PCSM, and all-cause mortality (ACM) after BCR between treatment groups using Fine-Gray competing risk regression. Models were adjusted for age, Gleason grade group, initial PSA (iPSA), clinical T stage, time-dependent use of systemic salvage, and interval to BCR using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results: Median follow-up was 9.9 years from RT and 4.8 years from BCR. Groups were similar in age, iPSA, presence of ≥2 HR features, and median interval to BCR (3.3 years). Most men received neoadjuvant/concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), 92.5% and 91.0% for EBRT and EBRT+BT, respectively, though for a longer duration with EBRT (median 14.7 vs. 9.0 months, p=0.0012). Local and systemic salvage rates were 2.3% and 36.3% after EBRT, and 2.6% and 43.6% after EBRT+BT, respectively. Initial EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower rates of DM after BCR (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36-0.64, p<0.001). Rates of PCSM and ACM did not significantly differ (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67-1.30, p=0.93, and HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.1, p=0.11, respectively). Conclusions: In this large retrospective series of radiorecurrent HRPCa, initial treatment with EBRT+BT was associated with significantly lower rates of DM after BCR compared with EBRT, despite shorter ADT use and a similar median interval to BCR. Local salvage was widely underutilized in both groups. In the absence of salvage for local failure after EBRT, upfront treatment intensification with BT may reduce DM, though not PCSM or ACM, even after development of BCR.

PD62-09 EVALUATING THE OUTCOMES OF ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE IN GLEASON GRADE GROUP 2 PROSTATE CANCER

2020 ◽  
Vol 203 ◽  
pp. e1289
Author(s):  
Adrian J. Waisman Malaret* ◽  
Kehao Zhu ◽  
Yingye Zheng ◽  
Lisa Newcomb ◽  
Peter Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Group 2

scholarly journals No detrimental effect of a positive family history on postoperative upgrading and upstaging in men with low risk and favourable intermediate-risk prostate cancer: implications for active surveillance

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen Herkommer ◽  
Nikola Maier ◽  
Donna P. Ankerst ◽  
Stefan Schiele ◽  
Jürgen E. Gschwend ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Family History ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Detrimental Effect ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Positive Family History ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
History Of

Abstract Purpose To assess whether a first-degree family history or a fatal family history of prostate cancer (PCa) are associated with postoperative upgrading and upstaging among men with low risk and favourable intermediate-risk (FIR) PCa and to provide guidance on clinical decision making for active surveillance (AS) in this patient population. Methods Participants in the German Familial Prostate Cancer database diagnosed from 1994 to 2019 with (1) low risk (clinical T1c–T2a, biopsy Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 1, PSA < 10 ng/ml), (2) Gleason 6 FIR (clinical T1c–T2a, GGG 1, PSA 10–20 ng/ml), and (3) Gleason 3 + 4 FIR (clinical T1c–T2a, GGG 2, PSA < 10 ng/ml) PCa who were subsequently treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) were analysed for upgrading, defined as postoperative GGG 3 tumour or upstaging, defined as pT3–pT4 or pN1 disease at RP. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess whether PCa family history was associated with postoperative upgrading or upstaging. Results Among 4091 men who underwent RP, mean age at surgery was 64.4 (SD 6.7) years, 24.7% reported a family history, and 3.4% a fatal family history. Neither family history nor fatal family history were associated with upgrading or upstaging at low risk, Gleason 6 FIR, and Gleason 3 + 4 FIR PCa patients. Conclusion Results from the current study indicated no detrimental effect of family history on postoperative upgrading or upstaging. Therefore, a positive family history or fatal family history of PCa in FIR PCa patients should not be a reason to refrain from AS in men otherwise suitable.

Transperineal sector biopsies: Their role in prostate cancer active surveillance.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 228-228
Author(s):  
Lona Vyas
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
Delayed Treatment ◽  
Prostate Biopsies ◽  
Transrectal Biopsy ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer

228 Background: Many men with low risk prostate cancer on transrectal biopsy appear suitable for active surveillance (AS). Under staging and grading at diagnosis can result in delayed treatment and risk of poorer oncological outcomes. In most AS series about 30% men have active treatment at a median of two years for presumed disease progression/choice but this may represent disease mischaracterised at initial biopsy. So it is essential to accurately stratify patients before surveillance. We have routinely offered transperineal sector prostate biopsies (TPSB), using 24-32 cores, to all patients considering AS. Methods: 350 patients with apparent low to intermediate risk prostate cancer after transrectal prostate biopsy (TRUS Bx) underwent transperineal sector biopsies. Results: Median age 64 yrs (38–84). Median PSA 7.2 ug/l (0.14–58). 190 had Gleason 3+3, 115 had Gleason 3+4 and 45 >3+4 disease. 145 (41%) patients elected for definitive treatment, in 112 because there was an upgrade or higher disease volume compared with the original TRUS Bx. 33 patients chose definitive treatment rather than continued AS. 205 (59%) patients entered our AS programme, in 25 follow up data is incomplete leaving 180 for analysis. 61 have had repeat TPSB within our protocol and at a median follow up at 2 years in 56/61 (92%) the Gleason score and volume of disease was unchanged. Only 5/180, 2.8% have had treatment for disease progression and additionally 4/180 (2.2%) have chosen active intervention over continued surveillance, despite no evidence of progression. Conclusions: TRUS biopsies under-estimate Gleason grade or cancer volume compared with TPSB. In our cohort of AS patients only 2.8%, at a median follow up of two years, have transferred to definitive treatment for disease progression. TPSB provides the best method to exclude higher risk disease from AS programmes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document