Use of Active Surveillance vs Definitive Treatment Among Men With Low- and Favorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer in the US Between 2010 and 2018.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Al Hussein Al Awamlh B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10071395 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Use of Active Surveillance vs Definitive Treatment Among Men With Low- and Favorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer in the US Between 2010 and 2018.
Al Hussein Al Awamlh Bashir B Barocas Daniel A DA Zhu Alec A Tosoian Jeffrey J JJ Ponsky Lee L Negoita Serban S Shoag Jonathan E JE
JAMA internal medicine 20230601 6
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundGuidelines suggest that active surveillance (AS) may be considered for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk (fIR) prostate cancer.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes between fIR prostate cancer patients included by Gleason score (GS) or prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Most patients are classified with fIR disease due to either a 3 + 4 = 7 GS (fIR-GS) or a PSA level of 10-20 ng/ml (fIR-PSA). Previous research suggests that inclusion by GS 7 may be associated with worse outcomes.Design setting and participantsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of US veterans diagnosed with fIR prostate cancer from 2001 to 2015.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisWe compared the incidence of metastatic disease, prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), all-cause mortality (ACM), and receipt of definitive treatment between fIR-PSA and fIR-GS patients managed with AS. Outcomes were compared with those of a previously published cohort of patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease using cumulative incidence function and Gray's test for statistical significance.Results and limitationsThe cohort included 663 men; 404 had fIR-GS (61%) and 249 fIR-PSA (39%). There was no evidence of difference in the incidence of metastatic disease (8.6% vs 5.8%, p = 0.77), receipt of definitive treatment (77.6% vs 81.5%, p = 0.43), PCSM (5.7% vs 2.5%, p = 0.274), and ACM (16.8% vs 19.1%, p = 0.14) between the fIR-PSA and fIR-GS groups at 10 yr. On multivariate regression, unfavorable intermediate-risk disease was associated with higher rates of metastatic disease, PCSM, and ACM. Limitations included varying surveillance protocols.ConclusionsThere is no evidence of difference in oncological and survival outcomes between men with fIR-PSA and fIR-GS prostate cancer undergoing AS. Thus, presence of GS 7 disease alone should not exclude patients from consideration of AS. Shared decision-making should be utilized to optimize management for each patient.Patient summaryIn this report, we compared the outcomes of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the Veterans Health Administration. We found no significant difference between survival and oncological outcomes.
| S-EPMC10123417 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Initial management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer is evolving, with no clear recommendation for treatment. Data on utilization of active surveillance for patients with newly diagnosed intermediate-risk prostate cancer may help clarify emerging trends. To further characterize US national trends of initial management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer. This cohort study included patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosed from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020. Eligible patients were diagnosed in US hospitals included in the National Cancer Database; National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk stratification guidelines were used to characterize as favorable vs unfavorable intermediate risk. Analysis was performed in September 2023. Active surveillance vs intervention with surgery and/or radiation or no treatment. Temporal trends in demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic factors among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and their association with the use of active surveillance; further subgroup analysis was conducted for those with favorable vs unfavorable intermediate risk classification. In total, 289 584 men diagnosed with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were identified from 2010 to 2020 (46 147 Black [15.9%], 230 071 White [79.5%]). Among patients, 153 726 (53.1%) underwent prostatectomy, 107 152 (37.0%) underwent radiotherapy, and 15 847 (5.5%) underwent active surveillance as initial treatment strategy. Overall, active surveillance quadrupled from 418 of 21 457 patients (2.0%) in 2010 to 2428 of 28 192 patients (8.6%) in 2020 for the entire cohort (P < .001). Active surveillance increased from 317 of 12 858 patients (2.4%) in 2010 to 2020 of 12 902 patients (13.5%) in 2020 in men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (P < .001). In the unfavorable intermediate-risk cohort, active surveillance increased from 101 of 8181 patients (1.2%) in 2010 to 408 of 12 861 patients (3.1%) in 2020 (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, use of active surveillance was associated with increased age (age 70-80 years vs <50 years: odds ratio [OR], 3.09; 95% CI, 2.66-3.59), lower Gleason score (3 + 3 vs 3 + 4: OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 3.25-3.66), early T stage (T2c vs T1a through T2a: OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.32-0.38), treatment at an academic center (community vs academic center: OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78), higher level of education (communities with 21% or higher population without high school vs less than 7%: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79), insurance type (Medicare or other governmental service vs private: OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.16), proximity to treatment facility (greater than 120 miles vs less than 60 miles: OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.84), facility location (South Atlantic vs New England: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.46-0.53), and lower income (less than $38 000 vs $63 000 or greater: OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.14-1.31). These findings highlight increasing implementation of active surveillance in the initial management of intermediate risk prostate cancer. Prospective data with improved risk stratification incorporating genomics and digital pathology artificial intelligence as well as novel surveillance strategies may continue to better delineate optimal treatment recommendations in this patient population.
| S-EPMC11342134 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionActive surveillance (AS) is increasingly used for favorable intermediate-risk (FIR) prostate cancer (PCa). Our objective was to determine oncological and sociodemographic predictors of deferred definitive therapy and decision for radical prostatectomy (RP) vs. radiotherapy (RT).MethodsThe Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Prostate with Watchful Waiting database was used to identify all FIR PCa diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 opting for AS for at least one year following diagnosis. We sought to determine predictors of treatment and treatment type using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsA total of 20 334 patients were identified. An annual decrease in incident FIR patients managed initially with AS between 2010 (4061) and 2015 (2947) was noted (p for trend &lt;0.001); 17 895 (88.0%) patients underwent deferred RP and/or RT. Patients with higher baseline cancer volume and clinical stage were significantly more likely to discontinue AS. Patients of higher socioeconomic status were more likely to undergo deferred therapy, with increased odds for RT over RP. African American patients had lower odds of undergoing definitive intervention (odds ratio 0.83, p=0.030) and were significantly more likely to opt for XRT. Oncological characteristics leading to FIR classification influenced treatment choice at the time of deferred intervention: RT was treatment of choice in 86.3% and 86.0% of Gleason group 2 and prostate-specific antigen 10-20 FIR patients, respectively; 96.1% of treated cT2b-c FIR patients opted for RP.ConclusionsMost FIR PCa patients initially managed with AS eventually undergo deferred definitive therapy, with choice of treatment significantly influenced by patients' baseline oncological and sociodemographic characteristics.
| S-EPMC8937595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the personal and/or medical reasons patients on active surveillance (AS) have, or consider having, further definitive treatment for their prostate cancer. Research suggests up to 50% of patients on AS will discontinue within 5 years, though reasons for discontinuation from the patient's perspective is under-explored.MethodsProstate cancer patients who were or had been on AS for at least 6 months were recruited. A questionnaire assessed reasons for receiving/considering definitive treatment and the extent to which reasons were personal or medical. Clinical information was extracted from a state-level population registry. A subset of participants were interviewed to further explore questionnaire responses.ResultsOne-hundred and-three individuals completed the survey; 33 were also interviewed. Fifty-four survey participants (52%) had discontinued AS for definitive treatment. Common reasons for discontinuation were evidence of disease progression, doctor recommendation, desire to act, and fear of progression. Many participants who considered or had treatment reported weighing medical and personal factors equally in their decision. Interview participants described strongly considering any amount of disease progression and personal factors such as fear of progression, family concerns, and adverse vicarious experiences when deciding whether to pursue treatment.ConclusionBoth medical and personal factors are considered when deciding whether to discontinue AS. Identifying predictors of discontinuation is essential for informing supportive care services to improve AS management.
| S-EPMC9540004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeActive surveillance (AS) is one of the management options for patients with low-risk and select intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC). However, factors predicting disease reclassification and conversion to active treatment from a large population of pure Asian cohorts regarding AS are less evaluated. This study investigated the intermediate-term outcomes of patients with localized PC undergoing AS.Materials and methodsThis cohort study enrolled consecutive men with localized non-high-risk PC diagnosed in Taiwan between June 2012 and Jan 2023. The study endpoints were disease reclassification (either pathological or radiographic progression) and conversion to active treatment. The factors predicting endpoints were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards model.ResultsA total of 405 patients (median age: 67.2 years) were consecutively enrolled and followed up with a median of 64.6 months. Based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk grouping, 70 (17.3%), 164 (40.5%), 140 (34.6%), and 31 (7.7%) patients were classified as very low-risk, low-risk, favorable-intermediate risk, and unfavorable intermediate-risk PC, respectively. The 5-year reclassification rates were 24.8%, 27.0%, 18.6%, and 25.3%, respectively. The 5-year conversion rates were 20.4%, 28.8%, 43.6%, and 37.8%, respectively. A prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) of ≥0.15 ng/mL² predicted reclassification (hazard ratio [HR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-2.88) and conversion (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.05-2.31). A maximal percentage of cancer in positive cores (MPCPC) of ≥15% predicted conversion (15% to <50%: HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.91-2.18; ≥50%: HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.1453-3.40) compared with that of <15%. A Gleason grade group (GGG) of 3 tumor also predicted conversion (HR 2.69, 95% CI 1.06-6.79; GGG 3 vs 1). One patient developed metastasis, but none died of PC during the study period (2,141 person-years).ConclusionsAS is a viable option for Taiwanese men with non-high-risk PC, in terms of reclassification and conversion. High PSAD predicted reclassification, whereas high PSAD, MPCPC, and GGG predicted conversion.
| S-EPMC11216962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to validate Decipher to predict adverse pathology (AP) at radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) favorable-intermediate risk (F-IR) prostate cancer (PCa), and to better select F-IR candidates for active surveillance (AS).MethodsIn all, 647 patients diagnosed with NCCN very low/low risk (VL/LR) or F-IR prostate cancer were identified from a multi-institutional PCa biopsy database; all underwent RP with complete postoperative clinicopathological information and Decipher genomic risk scores. The performance of all risk assessment tools was evaluated using logistic regression model for the endpoint of AP, defined as grade group 3-5, pT3b or higher, or lymph node invasion.ResultsThe median age was 61 years (interquartile range 56-66) for 220 patients with NCCN F-IR disease, 53% classified as low-risk by Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA 0-2) and 47% as intermediate-risk (CAPRA 3-5). Decipher classified 79%, 13% and 8% of men as low-, intermediate- and high-risk with 13%, 10%, and 41% rate of AP, respectively. Decipher was an independent predictor of AP with an odds ratio of 1.34 per 0.1 unit increased (p value = 0.002) and remained significant when adjusting by CAPRA. Notably, F-IR with Decipher low or intermediate score did not associate with significantly higher odds of AP compared to VL/LR.ConclusionsNCCN risk groups, including F-IR, are highly heterogeneous and should be replaced with multivariable risk-stratification. In particular, incorporating Decipher may be useful for safely expanding the use of AS in this patient population.
| S-EPMC8076042 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Active surveillance (AS) is standard of care for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), but its feasibility in intermediate-risk patients is controversial. We compared outcomes of low- and intermediate-risk patients managed with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-supported AS in a community hospital. Of the 433 patients enrolled in AS between 2009 and 2016, 358 complied with AS inclusion criteria (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score ≤ 5, Gleason grade group (GGG) ≤ 2, clinical stage ≤ cT2 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 20 ng/ml) and discontinuation criteria (histological-, PSA-, clinical- or radiological disease reclassification). Of the 358 patients, 177 (49%) were low-risk and 181 (51%) were intermediate-risk. Median follow-up was 4.2 years. The estimated 5-year treatment-free survival (TFS) was 56% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51-62%). Intermediate-risk patients had significantly shorter TFS compared with low-risk patients (hazard ratio 2.01, 95% CI 1.47-2.76, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the rate of adverse pathology, biochemical recurrence-free survival and overall survival between low- and intermediate-risk patients. Two patients developed metastatic disease and three died of PCa. These results suggest that selected patients with intermediate-risk PCa may be safely managed by mpMRI-supported AS, but longer follow-up is necessary.
| S-EPMC9039068 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo assess the utility of urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) as both a one-time and longitudinal measure in men on active surveillance (AS).MethodsThe Johns Hopkins AS program monitors men with favorable-risk prostate cancer with serial PSA, digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate magnetic resonance imaging and prostate biopsy. Since 2007, post-DRE urinary specimens have also been routinely obtained. Men with multiple PCA3 measures obtained over ⩾3 years of monitoring were included. Utility of first PCA3 score (fPCA3), subsequent PCA3 (sPCA3) and change in PCA3 were assessed for prediction of Gleason grade reclassification (GR, Gleason score >6) during follow-up.ResultsIn total, 260 men met study criteria. Median time from enrollment to fPCA3 was 2 years (interquartile range (IQR) 1-3) and from fPCA3 to sPCA3 was 5 years (IQR 4-6). During median follow-up of 6 years (IQR 5-8), 28 men (11%) underwent GR. Men with GR had higher median fPCA3 (48.0 vs 24.5, P=0.007) and sPCA3 (63.5 vs 36.0, P=0.002) than those without GR, while longitudinal change in PCA3 did not differ by GR status (log-normalized rate 0.07 vs 0.06, P=0.53). In a multivariable model including age, risk classification and PSA density, fPCA3 remained significantly associated with GR (log(fPCA3) odds ratio=1.77, P=0.04).ConclusionsPCA3 scores obtained during AS were higher in men who underwent GR, but the rate of change in PCA3 over time did not differ by GR status. PCA3 was a significant predictor of GR in a multivariable model including conventional risk factors, suggesting that PCA3 provides incremental prognostic information in the AS setting.
| S-EPMC5555773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThere are few published studies prospectively assessing pharmacological interventions that may delay prostate cancer progression in patients undergoing active surveillance (AS).ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide monotherapy plus AS vs AS alone in patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThe ENACT study was a phase 2, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted from June 2016 to August 2020 at 66 US and Canadian sites. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had received a diagnosis of histologically proven low-risk or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer within 6 months of screening, and were undergoing AS. Patients were monitored during 1 year of treatment and up to 2 years of follow-up. Data analysis was conducted in February 2021.InterventionsRandomized 1:1 to enzalutamide, 160 mg, monotherapy for 1 year or continued AS, as stratified by cancer risk and follow-up biopsy type.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was time to pathological or therapeutic prostate cancer progression (pathological, ≥1 increase in primary or secondary Gleason pattern or ≥15% increased cancer-positive cores; therapeutic, earliest occurrence of primary therapy for prostate cancer). Secondary end points included incidence of a negative biopsy result, percentage of cancer-positive cores, and incidence of a secondary rise in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at 1 and 2 years, as well as time to PSA progression. Adverse events were monitored to assess safety.ResultsA total of 114 patients were randomized to treatment with enzalutamide plus AS and 113 to AS alone; baseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms (mean [SD] age, 66.1 [7.8] years; 1 Asian individual [0.4%], 21 Black or African American individuals [9.3%], 1 Hispanic individual [0.4%], and 204 White individuals [89.9%]). Enzalutamide significantly reduced the risk of prostate cancer progression by 46% vs AS (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.89; P = .02). Compared with AS, odds of a negative biopsy result were 3.5 times higher; there was a significant reduction in the percentage of cancer-positive cores and the odds of a secondary rise in serum PSA levels at 1 year with treatment with enzalutamide; no significant difference was observed at 2 years. Treatment with enzalutamide also significantly delayed PSA progression by 6 months vs AS (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.97; P = .03). The most commonly reported adverse events during enzalutamide treatment were fatigue (62 [55.4%]) and gynecomastia (41 [36.6%]). Three patients in the enzalutamide arm died; none were receiving the study drug at the time of death. No deaths were considered treatment-related.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that enzalutamide monotherapy was well-tolerated and demonstrated a significant treatment response in patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer. Enzalutamide may provide an alternative treatment option for patients undergoing AS.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02799745.
| S-EPMC9204619 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Active surveillance (AS) is a monitoring strategy to avoid or defer curative treatment, minimizing the side effects of radiotherapy and prostatectomy without compromising survival. AS in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC) has increasingly become used. There is heterogeneity in intermediate-risk PC patients. Some of them have an aggressive clinical course and require active treatment, while others have indolent disease and may benefit from AS. However, intermediate-risk patients have an increased risk of metastasis, and the proper way to select the best candidates for AS is unknown. In addition, there are several differences between AS protocols in inclusion criteria, monitoring follow-up, and triggers for active treatment. A few large series and randomized trials are under investigation. Therefore, more research is needed to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with intermediate-risk disease. This study summarizes the current data on patients with intermediate-risk PC under AS, recent findings, and discusses future directions.
| S-EPMC9454661 | biostudies-literature