scholarly journals Active surveillance for prostate cancer: to whom, when and how

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-44
Author(s):  
M. S. Taratkin ◽  
E. A. Laukhtina ◽  
K. I. Adelman ◽  
Y. G. Alyaev ◽  
L. M. Rapoport ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Malignant Neoplasms ◽  
Cancer Specific Survival ◽  
Beam Radiation

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common oncological disease among men. It is important to note that over 50% of the first identified primary malignant neoplasms of prostate are low - risk PCa. Recently, radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation therapy have been the standard treatment options for PCa. According to recent data, patients with low - risk PCa have a favourable prognosis because of the slow progression of the disease. Some studies show no links between 10-year cancer - specific survival and treatment modalities and no progression even in the absence of therapy. Active surveillance (AS) allows avoiding unnecessary treatment in men who do not require immediate intervention but achieves the correct timing for curative treatment in those who eventually need it. According to the guidelines of the European Association of Urology, AS is one of the standard treatment options for low - risk PCa and should be consideredfor all patients in this category. The advantage of AS is to improve the quality of life in men with low - risk PCa and to delay surgical interventions as much as possible. However, despite widespread AS worldwide, there are only a few centres, which use it routinely in Russia. In this review, we would like to shed some light on the most important questions of AS strategy: what criteria should we use for selection of patients for AS strategy? How often should patient visit the urologist, control PSA level, and undergo prostate biopsy? When should a doctor change strategy and turn to active treatment? In this article, we considered indications for AS in men with PCa and showed the most recent data on the efficacy and relevance of this modality.

Comparison of active surveillance with other treatment options for low-risk prostate cancer.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 178-178
Author(s):  
Hima Bindu Musunuru ◽  
Gerard Morton ◽  
Laurence Klotz ◽  
Danny Vespirini ◽  
Patrick Cheung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Salvage Treatment ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy

178 Background: To evaluate outcomes and treatment history of low risk (LR) prostate cancer patients(pts) diagnosed between 2006-2008 in a single academic institute. Methods: Treatment and toxicity details were retrieved through retrospective chart review,apart from surgery where toxicity data was not available in detail.Biochemical RFS following primary and salvage treatments and CSS were computed.Pts who underwent salvage treatment for local failure and subsequently remained under biochemical control were censored as disease free for the salvage bRFS. Results: 594 pts were eligible for this study. Treatment options were active surveillance (AS=178 pts), low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR=192 pts, I-125 implant), stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR =84 pts; 35Gy in 5 weekly fractions), external beam radiation (EBRT=81 pts; 76Gy ) and radical prostatectomy (RP=59 pts). Median follow was > 70 months in all cohorts. 17.9% on AS protocol underwent active treatment. Biochemical failures were detected in 9 (5%), 10 (5.2%), 3 (3.5%), 6 (7.4%) and 9 (15.3%) pts respectively. Out of these, 4 pts in AS cohort, 2 in SABR group, and 7 in RP underwent local/salvage treatment. The 7-year bRFS was 94.4%, 93.6%, 95.8%, 90.1% and 89.5% for primary treatment and 95.7%, 93.6%, 98.7%, 90.1% and 98.3% following salvage treatment. 1 pt in AS, 2 in LDR, 1 pt in SABR and EBRT group developed metastatic disease. The 6 year CSS was 100% in all groups apart from LDR (99.4%) and EBRT (98.8%). Significant dysuria (20.8%) and hematochezia (7.4%) were noticed in EBRT cohort (Table). One grade 4 toxicity was noted in LDR, SABR and EBRT pts. Conclusions: AS has CSS comparable to other treatment options in LR prostate cancer setting with minimal toxicity. In the primary setting all treatment modalities apart from RP and EBRT have 7-year bRFS >93%. Differences in bRFS following salvage treatment might be due to pt and treatment selection. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Does the Presence of a Major Psychiatric Disorder Affect Tolerance and Outcomes in Men With Prostate Cancer Receiving Radiation Therapy?

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph J. Safdieh ◽  
David Schwartz ◽  
Justin Rineer ◽  
Joseph P. Weiner ◽  
Andrew Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Delayed Diagnosis ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Biochemical Control ◽  
Cancer Specific Survival ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Propensity Score Adjustment

Prior studies have suggested that men with prostate cancer and psychiatric disorders (+Psy) have worse outcomes compared with those without (−Psy), particularly due to delayed diagnosis or reduced access to definitive treatment. In the current study, the toxicity and outcomes of men who were primarily diagnosed through prostate-specific antigen screening and who underwent definitive treatment with external beam radiation was investigated. The charts of 469 men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2003 to 2010 were reviewed. The presence of +Psy was based on a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fourth edition diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and/or generalized anxiety disorder. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to analyze biochemical control, distant control, prostate cancer–specific survival, and overall survival. One hundred patients (21.3%) were identified as +Psy. At a median follow-up of 73 months, there were no differences regarding 6-year biochemical control (79.8% −Psy vs. 80.4% +Psy, p = .50) or 6-year distant metastatic-free survival (96.4% −Psy vs. 98.0% +Psy, p = .36). There were also no differences regarding the 6-year prostate cancer–specific survival (98.4% −Psy vs. 99.0% +Psy, p = .45) or 6-year overall survival (80.2% −Psy vs. 82.2% +Psy, p = .35). Short- and long-term genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were similar between the groups. On multivariate analyses with propensity score adjustment, +Psy was not a significant predictor for toxicity, biochemical recurrence, or survival. The presence of +Psy was not associated with higher toxicity or worse clinical outcomes, suggesting that effective removal of screening and treatment barriers may reduce the survival disparities of these patients.

Perceptions regarding prostate cancer (CaP) treatment options: Results from the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness and Survivorship Study (NC ProCESS).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6530-6530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald C. Chen ◽  
Matthew Edward Nielsen ◽  
Bryce B. Reeve ◽  
Laura H. Hendrix ◽  
Robert P Agans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Sexual Function ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Robotic Prostatectomy ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Radiation Oncologist ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
The North ◽  
Published Evidence

6530 Background: NC ProCESS is a population-based cohort of early (non-metastatic) CaP patients followed prospectively from diagnosis. Methods: Patients were identified through Rapid Case Ascertainment of the NC Cancer Registry from all NC counties in 2010-12. Phone survey assessed perceptions regarding treatment options and priorities in treatment selection. Results: 937 (59% of all eligible) completed this survey. Median age was 65; 72% were Caucasian. At time of survey, ~13 weeks from diagnosis, 98% had discussed options with a urologist, 49% with primary care, and 41% radiation oncologist. Many patients had concerns about potential effects of surgery and radiation on ability to perform daily activities, recovery time, and burden to family (Table). Open prostatectomy (ORP) and external beam radiation (RT) were deemed most likely to affect urinary and sexual function; fewer reported concern with robotic prostatectomy (RALP). Only 32% reported hormonal therapy would affect sexual function. Most reported surgery (especially RALP) had the best chance for cure, while 59% worried about recurrence with RT. In almost all questions, patients who consulted only with a urologist had significantly different perceptions about treatment options than those who also consulted with a radiation oncologist. In choosing treatment, 61% reported that cure was the highest priority, and 28% indicated preserving quality of life. Conclusions: Modern CaP patients often have misconceptions about treatment options inconsistent with published evidence, which are partially mitigated by multidisciplinary consultation. Most indicated cure as the highest priority, and surgery offers the best chance of cure. [Table: see text]

Hemi salvage HIFU in patients with radio recurrent prostate cancer: Early experience and results.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 99-99
Author(s):  
Gilles Pasticier ◽  
Eduard Baco ◽  
Olivier Rouviere ◽  
Sebastien Crouzet ◽  
Jean-Yves Chapelon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Local Recurrence ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Artificial Urinary Sphincter ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
High Intensity Focused Ultrasound ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Salvage Hifu

99 Background: One third of patients treated with External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) experience local recurrence. Salvage treatment options include prostatectomy, cryoablation, and High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU). Whole gland treatment in these patients offers acceptable cancer control, but carries a risk of severe urinary incontinence in at least 20% of cases and reduction of Quality of Life (QoL). In patients with unilateral local relapse, focal HIFU is feasible. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the effect of Hemi HIFU in patients with unilateral recurrence after radiotherapy. Methods: Between 2009 and 2012, 48 patients were prospectively included in 2 centers. Inclusion criteria were positive MRI and biopsy in one lobe diagnosing unilateral cancer after EBRT (46 patients) and after brachytherapy (2 patients). Mean age was 68.8 ± 6 years, mean pre HIFU PSA was 5.2 ± 5.2 ng/mL and the repartition of Gleason score was ≤7: 28, ≥8: 18 and not determined: 2. Median follow-up was 16.3 months [range 3-43]. Treatments were performed with Ablatherm® HIFU device. Results: The mean PSA nadir value was 0.69 ± 0.83 (median: 0.4). Disease progression occured in 16 patients (35,5%). Local recurrence was found in 4 patients in the controlateral lobe, and in 4 patients in both lobes. Six patients developped metastases and 2 had rising PSA without local recurence or proven metastasis. Fifteen of these 16 patients received salvage treatments (3 re-HIFU, 11 androgen-deprivation, and 1 re-HIFU plus androgen-deprivation). Thirthy-six patients (75%) were pad-free. Seven patients (14.6 %) required 1 pad a day. Severe incontinence occured in 5 patients (10.4%). One of them received artificial urinary sphincter. Paired results indicated no significant change in QoL and IPSS scores: EORTC-QLC-30: (from 35.7 ± 8.7 to 36.8 ± 8.6, p=0.22) and IPSS: (from 7 ± 5.6 to 8.5 ± 5.1, p=0.13) Conclusions: Hemi-salvage HIFU is efficient in patients with unilateral radio-recurrent PCa with a preserved QoL offering comparable cancer control to whole gland treatment.

Impact of dose-escalated radiation on overall survival in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 28-28
Author(s):  
Anusha Kalbasi ◽  
Jiaqi Li ◽  
Abigail T. Berman ◽  
Samuel Swisher-McClure ◽  
Marc C. Smaldone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Standard Dose ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Treatment Groups

28 Background: Infive publishedRCTs, dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer resulted in improved biochemical and local control. However, the question of whether dose escalation improves overall survival (OS) remains unanswered. We examined OS among men with non-metastatic prostate cancer undergoing EBRT in the modern era. Methods: Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we conducted non-randomized comparative effectiveness studies of dose-escalated versus standard-dose EBRT in men diagnosed from 2004-2006 in three analytic cohorts defined by NCCN risk category: low- (N=12,848), intermediate- (N=14,966) or high-risk (N=14,587) prostate cancer. We categorized patients in each risk cohort into 2 treatment groups: standard-dose (68.4 Gy to <75.6 Gy) or dose-escalated (≥75.6 Gy to 90 Gy) EBRT. The primary outcome was time to death from any cause, measured from diagnosis to NCDB date of death or end of follow-up (December 31, 2011). We compared OS between treatment groups in the three analytic cohorts using Cox proportional hazard models. Inverse probability weighted propensity score methods were used to balance differences between treatment groups in age, race, year of diagnosis, AJCC T- and N-stage, PSA, Gleason score, androgen deprivation therapy, IMRT use, comorbid disease, income, insurance, urban/rural location, facility type and facility volume. In secondary analyses, we evaluated dose response for survival by categorizing dose in approximately 2 Gy increments. Results: Median follow up for survivors was between 73 and 74 months in all three risk cohorts. Dose-escalated EBRT was associated with improved survival in the intermediate-risk (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.77 and 0.85, p<0.0001) and high-risk groups (aHR 0.85, 95% CI 0.81 and 0.89, p<0.0001), but not the low-risk group (aHR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92-1.06, p=0.803). For every incremental ~2Gy increase in dose, there was a 9% (95% CI 6% – 11%, p<0.0001) and 7% (95% CI 3% - 10%, p=0.004) reduction in the hazard of death for intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. Conclusions: Dose-escalated EBRT is associated with improved survival in men with intermediate- and high-risk, but not low-risk, prostate cancer.

Perspectives of prostate cancer patients about active surveillance.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 82-82
Author(s):  
Fred Saad ◽  
Margaret Fitch ◽  
Kittie Pang ◽  
Veronique Ouellet ◽  
Carmen Loiselle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Close Monitoring ◽  
Focus Group Interviews ◽  
Group Interviews

82 Background: In prostate cancer (PC), men diagnosed with low risk disease may be monitored through an active surveillance (AS) approach that runs counter to the traditional message of undergoing treatment as soon as possible following a cancer diagnosis. This research explored the perspectives of men with PC regarding their decision-making process for AS to identify the factors that influenced their decision and assisted health care professionals in discussing AS as an option. Methods: Focus group interviews (n = 7) were held in several Canadian cities with men (n = 52) diagnosed with PC and eligible for AS. The men’s viewpoints were captured regarding their understanding of AS, the factors that influenced their decision to engage in AS, and their experience with the approach. A content and theme analysis was performed on the verbatim transcripts from the interviews. Results: All patients described the perception that their disease was not “large enough” to require treatment. They understood that the waiting process avoided the side effects associated with treatments, and they were comfortable about postponing treatment while undergoing close monitoring. Conversations with their doctor and how AS was described were cited as key influences in their decision. Other influences included availability of information on treatment options, distrust in the health system, personality, experiences and opinions of others, and personal perspectives on quality of life. Conclusions: AS is a relatively new approach for the care of men with low risk PC. Men require a thorough explanation on AS as a safe and valid option, as well as guidance towards supportive resources in their decision-making.

scholarly journals The relationship between overactive bladder and prostate cancer: A scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Asher Khan ◽  
R. Trafford Crump ◽  
Kevin V. Carlson ◽  
Richard J. Baverstock
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
General Population ◽  
Overactive Bladder ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Inverse Association ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Beam Radiation ◽  
Pre Treatment ◽  
The Relationship

Introduction: The relationship between prostate cancer (PCa) and overactive bladder (OAB) is poorly understood. PCa and OAB are frequently diagnosed in elderly populations, so it could be expected that both conditions would be observed in older patients. Whether PCa and OAB occur independently with age, or the presence of PCa leads to the onset of OAB/lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) has not been explored. This review aimed to investigate whether men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) are more likely to have overactive bladder (OAB) compared to the general population, and if the various treatment modalities for PCa are likely to impact the incidence or exacerbation of OAB. Methods: The University of Calgary’s databases for Medline and PubMed were searched for relevant publications. No restrictions were placed on the study design reported. Any publications reporting OAB and a PCa diagnosis and/or observation relating to PCa diagnosis and rates of OAB/LUTS in an adult population were included for full review. Results: Of the studies examining the relationship between PCa and LUTS, results varied, but frequently indicated an inverse association between PCa and LUTS in which patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer were more unlikely to have LUTS compared to the general population. Following treatment, brachytherapy resulted in a higher prevalence of OAB symptoms compared to surgical treatment and external beam radiation therapy. Conclusions: Diverse evidence was found regarding the relationship between the prevalence of pre-treatment OAB and PCa diagnosis. However, limited evidence, as well as uncertainty regarding pre-treatment symptoms and their impact on post-treatment outcomes, restricts potential conclusions.

Combined brachytherapy and external beam radiation for prostate cancer in a community setting

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16147-e16147
Author(s):  
G. J. Kubicek ◽  
G. J. Kubicek ◽  
S. Brown ◽  
S. Redfield
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Late Toxicity ◽  
Biochemical Failure ◽  
External Beam Radiation ◽  
External Beam ◽  
Beam Radiation

e16147 Background: Prostate cancer is the most common male malignancy, and there is no one standard treatment modality. One treatment option is the combination of external beam radiotherapy and permanent transperineal brachytherapy seed implant Methods: Retrospective review of prostate cancer and side effect outcomes at a single institution in the community setting. All patients were treated with a combination of low dose rate transperineal brachytherapy seed placement and external beam radiation. Results: A total of 897 patients were analyzed, 781 had a minimum follow-up of one year. Median pre-treatment PSA was 8.1 (range 0.3 to 106) and the median Gleason score was 6. With a median follow-up of 3.6 years, 33 (3.4 %) patients had biochemical failure based on the phoenix definition of Nadir + 2. Not including impotence, acute toxicity greater than or equal to Grade 2 was seen in 115 patients (102 GU and 13 GI) and 193 patients had late toxicity greater than or equal to Grade 2 (155 GU and 38 GI). 563 patients received hormone therapy prior to or concurrent with the radiation. Conclusions: This is the largest series reporting on the outcome of combination brachytherpay implant and external beam radiation in the treatment of prostate cancer. Combination treatment using brachytherapy and external beam radiation is well tolerated, with a low rate of biochemical failure and should be considered one of the treatment options for prostate cancer. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document