Point: Active Surveillance for Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 5 (7) ◽  
pp. 693-698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence Klotz
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Close Monitoring ◽  
Psychological Burden ◽  
Pathologic Features ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Over Time

Active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer has become increasingly popular in populations where prostate cancer screening is widespread, because of evidence that prostate cancer screening results in the detection of disease that is not clinically significant in many patients (i.e., untreated, would not pose a threat to health). This approach is supported by data showing that patients who fall into the category of clinically insignificant disease can be identified with reasonable accuracy, and that patients who are initially classified as low-risk who reclassify over time as higher-risk and are treated radically are still cured in most cases. Active surveillance means 1) identifying patients who have a low likelihood of disease progression during their lifetime, based on clinical and pathologic features of the disease, and patient age and comorbidity; 2) close monitoring over time; 3) developing reasonable criteria for intervention, which will identify more aggressive disease in a timely fashion and not result in excessive treatment; and 4) meeting the communication challenge to reduce the psychological burden of living with untreated cancer. This article reviews the results of active surveillance, the criteria for patient selection, and the appropriate triggers for intervention.

scholarly journals Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Progress and Promise

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (27) ◽  
pp. 3669-3676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew R. Cooperberg ◽  
Peter R. Carroll ◽  
Laurence Klotz
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Close Monitoring ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Of Progression ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer

Widespread prostate-specific antigen (PSA) –based screening and aggressive treatment of prostate cancer have reduced mortality rates substantially, but both remain controversial in large part because of high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of otherwise indolent tumors. Active surveillance—or close monitoring of PSA levels combined with periodic imaging and repeat biopsies—is gaining acceptance as an alternative initial management strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer. In reported series, rates of progression to active treatment with intermediate-term follow-up have ranged from 14% to 41%, and likelihood of subsequent cure with surgery or radiation does not seem to be compromised by an initial trial of surveillance. Two related challenges to broader acceptance of surveillance are better characterization at time of diagnosis of the risk of progression (including likelihood that given tumor may have been undersampled by diagnostic biopsy) and validation of optimal end points once surveillance begins. Both are subjects of intense ongoing investigation, with emerging biomarkers and novel imaging tests expected to facilitate decision making substantially. Recent reports have suggested active surveillance can be a cost-effective approach and preserve quality of life, but these questions must be assessed more definitively in prospective cohorts. Ultimately, by minimizing the harms of overtreating low-risk prostate cancer, active surveillance may help settle the controversy surrounding prostate cancer screening and management.

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

Careful Selection and Close Monitoring of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance Minimizes the Need for Treatment

2010 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 831-835 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark S. Soloway ◽  
Cynthia T. Soloway ◽  
Ahmed Eldefrawy ◽  
Kristell Acosta ◽  
Bruce Kava ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Close Monitoring ◽  
Careful Selection ◽  
Need For Treatment ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer

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.

Expanded criteria in men on active surveillance monitored by MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 115-115
Author(s):  
Thomas P Frye ◽  
Steven F. Abboud ◽  
Richard Ho ◽  
Michele Fascelli ◽  
Raju Chelluri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Guided Biopsy ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Expanded Criteria ◽  
Clinically Significant

115 Background: Active surveillance (AS) is an established option for men with prostate cancer. Studies have shown that multiparametric-MRI along with MRI-TRUS fusion-guided biopsy (FB) may better assess risk in patients eligible for AS, compared to 12-core biopsy, due to improved detection of clinically significant cancers. The objective is to evaluate the performance of expanded criteria eligibility in men on AS being monitored with MRI-TRUS guided biopsy. Methods: Men on AS were included if they had mp-MRI and pathology data for 2 or more FB sessions. FB procedures consisted of targeted biopsies and random 12 core biopsies. Men participated in AS with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer, Gleason score ≤ 3+4=7 with no restriction on percent core involvement or number of cores positive. Progression was defined by patients with initial Gleason 3+3=6 to any Gleason 4, and Gleason 3+4=7 disease progressing to a primary Gleason 4 or higher. Results: 124 men on AS met study criteria. Low risk men had a mean age of 61.3 years versus intermediate risk men with a mean age of 65.5 years (p=0.0062). Mean PSA levels of the low and intermediate risk groups were 5.8 and 5.76 ng/ml (p=0.95), respectively. The mean length of follow-up was 22.56 months (range: 3.6 – 74.4 mo). Rates of pathologic progression in the intermediate and low risk patients were, 38.5% vs. 28.5% (p=0.33). Intermediate risk men had a mean progression-free survival (PFS) of 2.8 years compared to low risk men of 3.9 years (p=0.27). Patients were stratified according to established AS criteria (Epstein, Toronto, PRIAS) and rates of progression are summarized in the Table. 69% of patients met Epstein criteria for AS of which 29.4% (20/68) progressed compared to 28.5% for the low risk cohort overall. Conclusions: Men in our cohort who met strict criteria for AS had the same rate of progression as the entire expaned criteria low risk cohort, 29.4% vs 28.5%, respectively. Our data suggests that with accurate initial Gleason classification other AS criteria such as percent core or number of cores positive have no added benefit in predicting which men may have reclassification or progression of disease. [Table: see text]

Prevalence and predictors of active surveillance management for black males diagnosed with low risk prostate cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18019-e18019
Author(s):  
Nicolette Taku ◽  
Vivek Narayan ◽  
Scarlett Bellamy ◽  
Neha Vapiwala
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Consensus Guidelines ◽  
Pathologic Features ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer

e18019 Background: Consensus guidelines recommend that active surveillance (AS) be considered in the management of men with low risk prostate cancer (LRPC). The evidence supporting this recommendation is largely derived from studies in which men of African descent were underrepresented; thus, the appropriate implementation of AS in this population remains controversial. The objective of our study was to evaluate the prevalence and clinical predictors of an AS approach in black men (BM) diagnosed with LRPC following the 2010 inclusion of AS in LRPC management consensus guidelines. Methods: BM (N = 15,242) and non-Hispanic white men (WM) (N = 86,655) diagnosed with LRPC (as defined by PSA ≤ 10 ng/ml, Gleason score ≤ 6, clinical stage T1 – T2a) between 2010 and 2013 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Logistic regression models were used to assess the likelihood of pursuing an AS strategy over time, as well as to examine associations between sociodemographic characteristics (SDCs) and the receipt of AS. Results: Overall, 9% of BM with LRPC were managed with AS. On univariate analysis, the likelihood of BM undergoing AS increased from 2010 and was statistically significant ( p < 0.001) for all subsequent years (2011: OR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.30-1.82; 2012: OR = 2.19, 95% CI 1.82-2.60; 2013: OR = 2.55, 95% CI 2.15-3.02). Uninsured BM were twice as likely as those with private insurance to pursue AS (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.51-2.58, p < 0.001). BM seen at academic cancer programs were also more likely to be managed with AS, when compared to those seen at community cancer centers (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.37-1.60, p < 0.001). BM were less likely than WM to receive AS (OR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.87, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis adjusted for SDCs, there was no significant difference in AS utilization between the two ethnic groups. Conclusions: The utilization of AS for BM with LRPC appears to be increasing, may be influenced by SDCs, and may not differ from the AS utilization for WM with LRPC. Given the observed elevated rates of post-prostatectomy adverse pathologic features among BM, further evaluation of the determinants of AS utilization and scrutinous consideration of the appropriateness of AS in this population is warranted.

Population-based prostate cancer screening using a prospective, blinded, paired screen-positive comparison of PSA and fast MRI: The IP1-PROSTAGRAM study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5513-5513 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Eldred-Evans ◽  
Paula Burak ◽  
Martin John Connor ◽  
Emily Day ◽  
Martin Evans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Mri Scan ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Fast Mri ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Mri Score

5513 Background: The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test can lead to under- and over-diagnosis of prostate cancer and has not been recommended for population screening. A fast MRI scan might overcome the limitations of PSA. IP1-PROSTAGRAM is the first study to evaluate the performance of a 15-minute non-contrast MRI for prostate cancer screening in comparison to PSA. Methods: IP1-PROSTAGRAM was a prospective, population-based, screen-positive paired-cohort study. Men aged 50-69 years in the UK were invited for prostate cancer screening through seven primary care practices or community-based recruitment. Participants underwent a PSA and MRI scan (T2-weighted and diffusion). MRI was scored using PIRADS version 2.0 without knowledge of PSA; screen-positive MRI (defined as either PIRADS score 3-5 or 4-5) were compared against a screen-positive PSA defined as ≥3ng/ml. If any test was screen-positive, a systematic 12-core biopsy was performed with MRI-ultrasound image-fusion targeted biopsy to MRI suspicious areas, as appropriate. Clinically-significant cancer was defined as any Gleason score ≥3+4. The primary outcome was the proportion of screen-positive MRI at different scores; important secondary outcomes were the number of clinically-significant and insignificant cancers detected. Results: 2034 men were invited to participate of whom 408 consented and 406 were screened by both PSA and MRI (10/Oct/2018-15/May/2019). The proportion with a screen-positive MRI (score 3-5) was higher than the proportion with a screen-positive PSA (17.7% [95%CI 14.3-21.8] vs. 9.9% [95%CI 7.3-13.2]; p < 0.001). A screen-positive MRI (score 4-5) was similar to a screen-positive PSA (10.6% [95%CI 7.9-14.0] vs. 9.9% [95%CI 7.3-13.2], p = 0.71). An MRI score 3-5 or 4-5 used to denote a screen-positive MRI, compared to PSA alone, detected 14, 11 and 7 clinically-significant cancers, respectively. There were 7, 5 and 6 clinically-insignificant cancers detected, respectively. No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions: When screening the general population for prostate cancer, MRI using a score of 4-5 to define a screen-positive test, compared to PSA alone at ≥3ng/ml, could lead to more men diagnosed with clinically-significant cancer without increasing the number of men biopsied or diagnosed with clinically-insignificant cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT03702439 .

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document