Dataset Information

Treatment in the absence of disease reclassification among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Maintaining men on active surveillance for prostate cancer can be challenging. Although most men who eventually undergo treatment have experienced clinical progression, a smaller subset elects treatment in the absence of disease reclassification. This study sought to understand factors associated with treatment in a large, contemporary, prospective cohort.

Methods

This study identified 1789 men in the Canary Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study cohort enrolled as of 2020 with a median follow-up of 5.6 years. Clinical and demographic data as well as information on patient-reported quality of life and urinary symptoms were used in multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to identify factors associated with the time to treatment RESULTS: Within 4 years of their diagnosis, 33% of men (95% confidence interval [CI], 30%-35%) underwent treatment, and 10% (95% CI, 9%-12%) were treated in the absence of reclassification. The most significant factor associated with any treatment was an increasing Gleason grade group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 14.5; 95% CI, 11.7-17.9). Urinary quality-of-life scores were associated with treatment without reclassification (aHR comparing "mostly dissatisfied/terrible" with "pleased/mixed," 2.65; 95% CI, 1.54-4.59). In a subset analysis (n = 692), married men, compared with single men, were more likely to undergo treatment in the absence of reclassification (aHR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.04-6.66).

Conclusions

A substantial number of men with prostate cancer undergo treatment in the absence of clinical changes in their cancers, and quality-of-life changes and marital status may be important factors in these decisions.

Lay summary

This analysis of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer shows that approximately 1 in 10 men will decide to be treated within 4 years of their diagnosis even if their cancer is stable. These choices may be related in part to quality-or-life or spousal concerns.

SUBMITTER: Kirk PS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8738121 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Treatment in the absence of disease reclassification among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Kirk Peter S PS Zhu Kehao K Zheng Yingye Y Newcomb Lisa F LF Schenk Jeannette M JM Brooks James D JD Carroll Peter R PR Dash Atreya A Ellis William J WJ Filson Christopher P CP Gleave Martin E ME Liss Michael M Martin Frances F McKenney Jesse K JK Morgan Todd M TM Nelson Peter S PS Thompson Ian M IM Wagner Andrew A AA Lin Daniel W DW Gore John L JL

Cancer 20210913 2

<h4>Background</h4>Maintaining men on active surveillance for prostate cancer can be challenging. Although most men who eventually undergo treatment have experienced clinical progression, a smaller subset elects treatment in the absence of disease reclassification. This study sought to understand factors associated with treatment in a large, contemporary, prospective cohort.<h4>Methods</h4>This study identified 1789 men in the Canary Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study cohort enrolled as o ...[more]

PMID: 34516660

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ContextIn the United States, 192,000 men were diagnosed as having prostate cancer in 2009, the majority with low-risk, clinically localized disease. Treatment of these cancers is associated with substantial morbidity. Active surveillance is an alternative to initial treatment, but long-term outcomes and effect on quality of life have not been well characterized.ObjectiveTo examine the quality-of-life benefits and risks of active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer.Design and settingDecision analysis using a simulation model was performed: men were treated at diagnosis with brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), or radical prostatectomy or followed up by active surveillance (a strategy of close monitoring of newly diagnosed patients with serial prostate-specific antigen measurements, digital rectal examinations, and biopsies, with treatment at disease progression or patient choice). Probabilities and utilities were derived from previous studies and literature review. In the base case, the relative risk of prostate cancer-specific death for initial treatment vs active surveillance was assumed to be 0.83. Men incurred short- and long-term adverse effects of treatment.PatientsHypothetical cohorts of 65-year-old men newly diagnosed as having clinically localized, low-risk prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen level <10 ng/mL, stage ≤T2a disease, and Gleason score ≤6).Main outcome measureQuality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE).ResultsActive surveillance was associated with the greatest QALE (11.07 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), followed by brachytherapy (10.57 QALYs), IMRT (10.51 QALYs), and radical prostatectomy (10.23 QALYs). Active surveillance remained associated with the highest QALE even if the relative risk of prostate cancer-specific death for initial treatment vs active surveillance was as low as 0.6. However, the QALE gains and the optimal strategy were highly dependent on individual preferences for living under active surveillance and for having been treated.ConclusionsUnder a wide range of assumptions, for a 65-year-old man, active surveillance is a reasonable approach to low-risk prostate cancer based on QALE compared with initial treatment. However, individual preferences play a central role in the decision whether to treat or to pursue active surveillance.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients who are on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer will have surveillance prostate needle biopsies (PNBs) without any cancer evident.ObjectiveTo define the association between negative surveillance PNBs and risk of reclassification on AS.Design, setting, and participantsAll men were enrolled in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) between 2008 and 2016. Men were included if they had Gleason ≤3+4 prostate cancer and <34% core involvement ratio at diagnosis. Men were prescribed surveillance PNBs at 12 and 24 mo after diagnosis and then every 24 mo.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisReclassification was defined as an increase in Gleason grade and/or an increase in the ratio of biopsy cores to cancer to ≥34%. PNB outcomes were defined as follows: (1) no cancer on biopsy, (2) cancer without reclassification, or (3) reclassification. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were performed to assess the risk of reclassification.Results and limitationsA total of 657 men met inclusion criteria. On first surveillance PNB, 214 (32%) had no cancer, 282 (43%) had cancer but no reclassification, and 161 (25%) reclassified. Among those who did not reclassify, 313 had a second PNB. On second PNB, 120 (38%) had no cancer, 139 (44%) had cancer but no reclassification, and 54 (17%) reclassified. In a multivariable analysis, significant predictors of decreased future reclassification after the first PNB were no cancer on PNB (hazard ratio [HR]=0.50, p=0.008), lower serum prostate-specific antigen, larger prostate size, and lower body mass index. A finding of no cancer on the second PNB was also associated with significantly decreased future reclassification in a multivariable analysis (HR=0.15, p=0.003), regardless of the first PNB result. The major limitation of this study is a relatively small number of patients with long-term follow-up.ConclusionsMen who have a surveillance PNB with no evidence of cancer are significantly less likely to reclassify on AS in the PASS cohort. These findings have implications for tailoring AS protocols.Patient summaryMen on active surveillance for prostate cancer who have a biopsy showing no cancer are at a decreased risk of having worse disease in the future. This may have an impact on how frequently biopsies are required to be performed in the future.

Project description:Determining prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness and reclassification are critical events during the treatment of localized disease and for patients undergoing active surveillance (AS). Since T cells play major roles in cancer surveillance and elimination, we aimed to identify genetic biomarkers related to T cell cancer immune response which are predictive of aggressiveness and reclassification risks in localized PCa. The genotypes of 3,586 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from T cell cancer immune response pathways were analyzed in 1762 patients with localized disease and 393 who elected AS. The aggressiveness of PCa was defined according to pathological Gleason score (GS) and D'Amico criteria. PCa reclassification was defined according to changes in GS or tumor characteristics during subsequent surveillance biopsies. Functional characterization and analysis of immune phenotypes were also performed. In the localized PCa cohort, seven SNPs were significantly associated with the risk of aggressive disease. In the AS cohort, another eight SNPs were identified as predictors for aggressiveness and reclassification. Rs1687016 of PSMB8 was the most significant predictor of reclassification. Cumulative analysis showed that a genetic score based on the identified SNPs could significantly predict risk of D'Amico high risk disease (P-trend = 2.4E-09), GS4 + 3 disease (P-trend = 1.3E-04), biochemical recurrence (P-trend = 0.01) and reclassification (P-trend = 0.01). In addition, the rs34309 variant was associated with functional somatic mutations in the PI3K/PTEN/AKT/MTOR pathway and tumor lymphocyte infiltration. Our study provides plausible evidence that genetic variations in T cell cancer immune response can influence risks of aggressiveness and reclassification in localized PCa, which may lead to additional biological insight into these outcomes. Abbreviations: PCa, prostate cancer; AS, active surveillance; GS, Gleason score; PSA, prostate specific antigen; TCGA, The Cancer Genome Atlas; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphisms; UFG, unfavorable genotype.

Dataset Information

Treatment in the absence of disease reclassification among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Background

Methods

Conclusions

Lay summary

Publications

Treatment in the absence of disease reclassification among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets