Differences among Men on Active Surveillance for Very Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Detected Through Population-Based versus Opportunistic Prostate-Specific Antigen-Screening

2015 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 330-336
Author(s):  
Marco Randazzo ◽  
Josef Beatrice ◽  
Andreas Huber ◽  
Rainer Grobholz ◽  
Lukas Manka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer

Introduction: Very low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) is being increasingly managed by active surveillance (AS). Our aim was to assess the influence of the origin of diagnosis on PCa characteristics and treatment rates among men with very low-risk PCa in our prospective AS cohort. Methods: Overall, 191 men with very low-risk PCa fulfilling Epstein-criteria underwent protocol-based AS. These men originated either from the prospective population-based screening program (P-AS) or were diagnosed by opportunistic screening (O-AS). Results: Overall, n = 86 (45.0%) originated from the P-AS group, whereas n = 105 (55.0%) from the O-AS group. On univariate Cox regression analysis, age (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-1.00; p = 0.05), origin of diagnosis (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41-1.28; p = 0.001), number of positive cores (HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.18-3.90; p = 0.01) and maximum core involvement (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99-1.05; p = 0.05) were predictors for treatment necessity. On multivariate analysis, age (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-0.99; p = 0.05), number of positive cores (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.10-3.88; p = 0.02), maximum core involvement (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.06; p = 0.04) but not origin of diagnosis were independent predictors for treatment necessity. Four men developed biochemical recurrence (all from O-AS group [p = 0.05]). Conclusion: The origin of PCa diagnosis in men undergoing AS had no influence on disease progression and treatment necessity.

scholarly journals Can we expand the borders in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer?

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-59
Author(s):  
Ekrem Islamoglu ◽  
Erdem Kisa ◽  
Cem Yucel ◽  
Orcun Celik ◽  
Ozgur Cakmak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
The Mean

Purpose: We assessed the outcomes of men with low-risk prostate cancer enrolled in active surveillance. Methods: From January 2008, patients in our clinic who were classified as having low-risk prostate cancer according to the D’Amico classification were included in the protocol. Follow-up consisted of regular prostate-specific antigen tests, digital rectal examinations and biopsies. Outcomes were compared between men who progressed and those who did not, and survival analysis was obtained. Results: The mean follow-up period was 46 months. A total of six patients received curative treatment during follow-up as a result of meeting progression criteria. The mean follow-up time from the beginning of active surveillance until curative therapy was 27.1 months. Four of our 64 patients lost their lives due to diseases other than prostate cancer, none of the patients were lost due to prostate cancer. When patients who showed progression and those who did not were compared in terms of positive core numbers and the core tumour percentage we found no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05) Conclusion: Active surveillance seems to be a safe and feasible practice in men with low-risk prostate cancer. Gleason score, clinical stage and initial prostate-specific antigen seem to be the most definite criteria for the selection of patients, while it is thought that the number of positive cores is a matter that can be dealt with more flexibility. Level of evidence: Not applicable for this multicentre audit.

scholarly journals An assessment of Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria for active surveillance of clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 238-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vitor Da Silva ◽  
Ilias Cagiannos ◽  
Luke T. Lavallée ◽  
Ranjeeta Mallick ◽  
Kelsey Witiuk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Research ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Psa Recurrence ◽  
Prostate Cancer Research

Introduction: Active surveillance is a strategy to delay or prevent treatment of indolent prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria were developed to select patients for prostate cancer active surveillance. The objective of this study was to compare pathological findings from PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients.Methods: A D’Amico low-risk cohort of 1512 radical prostatectomy patients treated at The Ottawa Hospital or Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre between January 1995 and December 2007 was reviewed. Pathological outcomes (pT3 tumours, Gleason sum ≥7, lymph node metastases, or a composite) and clinical outcomes (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] recurrence, secondary cancer treatments, and death) were compared between PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible cohorts.Results: The PRIAS-eligible cohort (n=945) was less likely to have Gleason score ≥7 (odds ratio [OR] 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49‒0.75), pT3 (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.31‒0.55), nodal metastases (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.10‒1.31), or any adverse feature (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45‒0.69) compared to the PRIAS-ineligible cohort. The probability of any adverse pathology in the PRIAS-eligible cohort was 41% vs. 56% in the PRIAS-ineligible cohort. At median followup of 3.7 years, 72 (4.8%) patients had a PSA recurrence, 24 (1.6%) received pelvic radiation, and 13 (0.9%) received androgen deprivation. No difference was detected for recurrence-free and overall survival between groups (recurrence hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; 95% CI 0.46–1.09 and survival HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.36–1.47).Conclusions: Low-risk prostate cancer patients who met PRIAS eligibility criteria are less likely to have higher-risk cancer compared to those who did not meet at least one of these criteria.

scholarly journals Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in a middle eastern tertiary care center

2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-388
Author(s):  
Mohammad Hout ◽  
Ali Merhe ◽  
Nassib Abou Heidar ◽  
Jose M. El-Asmar ◽  
Wassim Wazzan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Active Treatment ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer

Background: The aim of our study was to evaluate the outcome of active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer for a cohort of patients at our institution. Methods: A total of 43 patients with low risk prostate cancer were enrolled in an active surveillance pilot program at our institution between 2008 and 2018. Follow up protocols included: periodic prostate specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination (DRE), multiparametric MRI, and prostate biopsy at one year. Pertinent parameters were collected, and descriptive statistics were reported along with a subset analysis of patients that dropped out of the protocol to receive active treatment for disease progression. Results: Out of 43 eligible patients, 46.5% had a significant rise in follow up PSA. DRE was initially suspicious in 27.9% of patients, and none had any change in DRE on follow up. Initially, prostate MRIs showed PIRADS 3, 4, and 5 in 14%, 37.2%, and 11.6% respectively, while 23.2% had a negative initial MRI. 14% did not have an MRI. Upon follow up, 18.6% of patients had progression on MRI. Initial biopsies revealed that 86% were classified as WHO group 1, while 14% as WHO group 2. With regards to the follow up biopsies, 11.6% were upgraded. 20.9% of our patients had active treatment; 44.4% due to upgraded biopsy results, 22.2% due to PSA progression, 22.2% due to strong patient preference, and 11.1% due to radiologic progression. Conclusions: For selected men with low risk prostate cancer, AS is a reasonable alternative. The decision for active treatment should be tailored upon changes in PSA, DRE, MRI, and biopsy results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document