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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Active surveillance follow-up low-risk positive core number prostate cancer

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cooperberg

Moul

Carroll

. The changing face of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 8146–8151.

Schröder

Hugosson

Roobol

et al . Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 2014; 384: 2027–2035.

D’Amico

Moul

Carroll

et al . Cancer-specific mortality after surgery or radiation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed during the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2163–2172.

Remzi

Fong

Dobrovits

et al . The Vienna nomogram: validation of a novel biopsy strategy defining the optimal number of cores based on patient age and total prostate volume. J Urol 2005; 174: 1256–1261.

Hugosson

Carlsson

Aus

et al . Mortality results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 725–732.

Draisma

Boer

Otto

et al . Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95: 868–878.

Carter

Kettermann

Warlick

et al . Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol 2007; 178: 2359–2365.

Klotz

Zhang

Lam

et al . Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 126–131.

Tosoian

Trock

Landis

et al . Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2185–2190.

10.

Bokhorst

Valdagni

Rannikko

et al .; PRIAS study group. A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 954–960.

11.

Soloway

Eldefrawy

et al . Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 831–835.

12.

Mullins

Bonekamp

Landis

et al . Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int 2013; 111: 1037–1045.

13.

Ross

Loeb

Landis

et al . Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 2810–2816.

14.

Popiolek

Rider

Andrén

et al . Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer: a final report from three decades of follow-up. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 428–435.