Influence of Active Surveillance on Gleason Score Upgrade and Prognosis in Low- and Favorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

Few studies have focused on the link between active surveillance (AS) and Gleason score upgrade (GSU) and its impact on the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer (PCa). This study aimed to analyze the effect of AS duration on GSU and prognostic value based on risk stratification. All eligible patients were risk-stratified according to AUA guidelines into low-risk (LR), favorable intermediate-risk (FIR), and unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) PCa. Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database, 28,368 LR, 27,243 FIR, and 12,210 UIR PCa patients were included. The relationship between AS duration and GSU was identified with univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Discrimination according to risk stratification of AS duration and GSU was tested by Kaplan–Meier analysis and competing risk regression models. The proportion of patients who chose AS was the highest among LR PCa (3434, 12.1%), while the proportion in UIR PCa was the lowest (887, 7.3%). The AS duration was only associated with GSU in LR PCa, with a high Gleason score (GS) at diagnosis being a strong predictor of GSU for FIR and UIR PCa. Kaplan–Meier analysis indicated that long-term surveillance only made a significant difference in prognosis in UIR PCa. The competing risk analysis indicated that once GS was upgraded to 8 or above, the prognosis in each group was significantly worse. AS is recommended for LR and FIR PCa until GS is upgraded to 8, but AS may not be suitable for some UIR PCa patients.     

Comparison of 11 Active Surveillance Protocols in Contemporary European Men Treated With Radical Prostatectomy

Background

The aim of this study was to compare 11 active surveillance (AS) protocols in contemporary European men treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) at the Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center.

Survival Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy Versus Radiotherapy in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A NCDB Study

Background

Studies of various prostate cancer patient cohorts found men receiving external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) had higher mortality than men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). Conversely, a recent clinical trial showed no survival differences between treatment groups. We used the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) to evaluate overall survival in intermediate-risk (T2b-T2c or Gleason 7 [grade group II or III] or prostate-specific antigen 10-20 ng/mL) prostate cancer patients undergoing EBRT with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), RP, or no initial treatment.

BMI在前列腺癌根治术患者中的意义

目的 研究体重指数(body mass index,BMI)在前列腺癌根治术患者中的意义.方法 回顾性分析139例行根治性前列腺切除术患者的年龄、身高、体重、PSA、病理结果,比较包膜内及包膜外组指标的差异,采用logistics回归分析,分析BMI对前列腺癌的影响.结果 139例患者包膜外侵犯共29例,logistics回归分析BMI指数升高(JP=0.013)、tPSA升高(P =0.046)是包膜外侵犯的重要危险因素(P＜0.05).结论 BMI指数升高是前列腺癌包膜外侵犯的重要预测因素,肥胖可能在前列腺癌的进展中起着重要作用.     

Survival Outcomes for Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Radical Prostatectomy or Radiation Therapy: A SEER-based Study

BackgroundPatients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) have a very low 5-year survival rate. How to choose proper treatment of mPCa remains controversial.MethodWithin the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2015), we performed analyses of cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and overall mortality (OM) in the comparisons of local treatment (LT) versus no local treatment (NLT) and radical prostatectomy (RP) versus radiation therapy (RT). To balance the characteristics between 2 treatment groups, propensity score matching was performed. Considering the selection bias, we additionally used an instrument variate (IVA) to calculate the unmeasured confounders.ResultMultivariate regression showed that patients receiving LT had the lower risks of OM and CSM after adjustment of covariates (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.44 and HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.34-0.45). In the IVA-adjusted model, LT showed more survival benefits compared with NLT, with HR of 0.57 (95% CI 0.50-0.65) and cancer-specific HR of 0.59 (95% CI 0.51-0.68), respectively. For those receiving LT, adjusted multivariate regression indicated that RP is superior to RT (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43-0.83 for OM and HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.42-0.91 for CSM). The IVA-adjusted model also showed that RP presented with potentially better survival outcome compared with RT, although the effect was not statistically significant (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.26-1.54 for OM and HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.16-1.35 for CSM).ConclusionAmong patients with metastatic prostate cancer, LT might bring better survival benefits in decreasing CSM and all-cause mortality compared with NLT. For those receiving LT, RP showed better survival outcomes than RT.     

Active Surveillance for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Current Protocols and Outcomes

IntroductionCurrent guidelines allow active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients but do not provide comprehensive recommendations for selection. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes for active surveillance in intermediate- and low-risk groups.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search of intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance using 3 literature search engines (Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus) over the past 10 years. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who remain under surveillance. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and metastasis-free survival. For articles including both low- and intermediate-risk patients undergoing active surveillance, comparisons between the two groups were made.ResultsThe proportion of patients who remained on active surveillance was comparable between the low- and intermediate-risk groups after 10 and 15 years’ follow-up (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83–1.14; and OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.65–1.13). Cancer-specific survival was worse in the intermediate-risk group after 10 years (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31–0.69) and 15 years (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.2–0.58). The overall survival rate showed no statistical difference at 5 years’ follow-up (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.45–1.57) but was worse in the intermediate-risk group after 10 years (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.35–0.53). Metastases-free survival did not significantly differ after 5 years (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.2–1.53) and was worse in the intermediate-risk group after 10 years (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28–0.77).ConclusionActive surveillance could be offered to patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. However, they should be informed of the need for regular monitoring and the possibility of discontinuation as a result of a higher rate of progression. Available data indicate that 5-year survival rates between intermediate- and low-risk patients do not differ; 10-year survival rates are worse. To assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of active surveillance, it is necessary to develop unified algorithms for patient selection and management, and to prospectively conduct studies with long-term surveillance.     

Oncologic Outcomes of Definitive Treatments for Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer After a Period of Active Surveillance

Background

To compare oncologic outcomes of different definitive treatment (DT) modalities in a cohort of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) after active surveillance (AS).

Outcomes for Young Men With Localized Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the NCDB

BackgroundPrimary management of localized, intermediate-risk prostate cancer consists of radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RT) with short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or RT alone. The purpose of this study was to determine if these treatment strategies have equivalent overall survival (OS) in patients < 55 years old with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.Patients and MethodsWe identified 35,134 patients in the National Cancer Data Base with localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with RP, RT + ADT, or RT from 2004 to 2013. Ten-year OS rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed by multivariate Cox regression.ResultsA total of 29,920 patients (85.2%) underwent RP, 1393 (4.0%) RT + ADT, and 3821 (10.9%) RT. Median patient age was 51 years old, and median follow-up was 59.9 months. Ten-year OS was estimated to be 94.2% for RP, 80.7% for RT + ADT, and 85.2% for RT (P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, treatment with RT + ADT or RT was associated with significantly worse OS compared to treatment with RP (RT + ADT HR = 2.06, 95% CI 1.67-2.54, P < .0001; RT HR = 2.0, 95% CI 1.71-2.33, P < .0001). Patients who met all 3 of the intermediate-risk criteria showed worse OS compared to patients who met only one criterion (HR = 1.80; 95% CI, 1.32-2.44; P = .0002).ConclusionRP is significantly more likely than RT + ADT or RT to be used as a primary treatment for young men with localized intermediate prostate cancer. RP was also associated with improved OS compared to RT + ADT and RT.     

Oncologic Effect of Cumulative Smoking Exposure in Patients Treated With Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Radiation-recurrent Prostate Cancer

Introduction

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the association of smoking with biochemical recurrence (BCR) and metastasis in radiation-recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP).

Advancing Age and the Odds of Upgrading and Upstaging at Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer

PurposeTo identify a subset of men with Gleason score (GS) 6 prostate cancer who are at high risk for upgrading/upstaging who should be recommended for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.Patients and MethodsBetween 1992 and 2017, a total of 3571 men with GS6 prostate cancer were consecutively treated at a single institution with radical prostatectomy. Logistic regression multivariable analyses to determine the odds of upgrading and upstaging were performed, adjusting for age and year of diagnosis, clinical T category, prostate-specific antigen level, number of biopsy cores, and percentage of positive biopsy cores.ResultsOf 3571 men, the disease of 115 (3.22%), 245 (6.86%), and 254 (7.11%) was upgraded, was upstaged, or had positive surgical margins (R1), respectively. Older age at diagnosis was associated with an increased risk of upgrading disease to GS7 or higher, prostatectomy T3/T4, and R1 with adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 1.05 (1.01-1.08; P = .005), 1.02 (1.00-1.05; P = .048), and 1.02 (1.002-1.05; P = .03), respectively. Older age was associated with an increasing proportion of men with disease upgraded to GS7 or higher (T1c: P = .002; T2 or higher: P = .04) or upstaged to pT3/4 or pT2R1 (T1c: P = .02; T2 or higher: P = .02) among men with ≥ 33% but not < 33% positive biopsy cores.ConclusionBefore initiating active surveillance, performing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in otherwise healthy older men with GS6 prostate cancer and ≥ 33% positive biopsy cores should be considered.     

Long-Term Biochemical Control of a Prospective Cohort of Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Interstitial Brachytherapy Versus Radical Prostatectomy

AimsTo report long-term oncological outcomes of men treated prospectively as part of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group phase III Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial (SPIRIT) at our institution.Materials and methodsIn 2003–2004, patients eligible for SPRIT attended a multidisciplinary educational session, following which they could choose radical prostatectomy, low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) or randomisation to SPIRIT. Biochemical failure was determined by the accepted definitions of a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level ≥0.2 ng/ml after radical prostatectomy and the Phoenix definition of PSA ≥2 ng/ml above the nadir after LDR-BT. A sensitivity analysis, using a PSA >0.5 ng/ml to define biochemical failure after LDR-BT and a threshold PSA ≥0.2 ng/ml, was carried out to test the robustness of the results. To account for the competing risk of death, Gray's test was used to test the equality of the cumulative incidence function of biochemical failure between treatment groups. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate overall survival and prostate cancer-specific survival. A P-value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsOf 156 patients, 100 received LDR-BT (15 after randomisation) and 56 underwent radical prostatectomy (15 after randomisation). The median follow-up was 12.6 and 14.7 years for LDR-BT and radical prostatectomy, respectively. The median age was 60 years; the median pre-treatment PSA was 5.5 (interquartile range 4.3–7.1). No significant differences in patient characteristics were found between groups. Two patients received adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. The cumulative incidence function of biochemical failure was 0%, 1.1% and 2.4% at 5, 10 and 15 years, respectively, in the LDR-BT arm versus 8.5%, 15.8% and 15.8% in the radical prostatectomy arm (P < 0.001). These results were consistent when varying the definition of biochemical failure defined as PSA ≥0.5 ng/ml (P = 0.01). At 15 years, overall survival was higher in patients treated with radical prostatectomy compared with those treated with LDR-BT; however, no statistical difference was found in prostate cancer-specific survival.ConclusionIn low-risk prostate cancer patients, LDR-BT offers excellent long-term oncological outcomes comparable with radical prostatectomy, in addition to the previously reported advantage for LDR-BT in urinary and sexual quality of life domains and patient satisfaction.     

Rate and Extent of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in the US Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Radical Prostatectomy

Purpose

To evaluate the utilization of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) and its extent in contemporary US patients, and to correlate it to the detection of pN1 disease.

Perioperative Morbidity of Radical Prostatectomy After Intensive Neoadjuvant Androgen Blockade in Men With High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results of Phase II Trial Compared to a Control Group

IntroductionRecent studies about intense neoadjuvant therapy followed by Radical Prostatectomy (RP) lack standardized criteria regarding surgical complications and comparison to a group of patients who underwent RP without the use of neoadjuvant therapy. The aim of this study is to describe and compare the perioperative complication rates.Materials and MethodsThis was a prospective, single-center phase II trial in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa). The control group included HRPCa patients who underwent RP outside the clinical trial during the same study recruitment period. The interventional group was randomized (1:1) to receive neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy plus abiraterone with or without apalutamide followed by RP. Complications observed up to 30 days of surgery were classified based on the Clavien-Dindo classification. Uni- and multivariate analyses were carried out to assess predictive factors associated with perioperative complications.ResultsIn total, 124 patients with HRPCa were underwent to RP between May 27, 2019 and August 6, 2021, including 61 patients in the intervention group and 63 patients in the control group. The general and major complications in the intervention group reached 29.6% and 6.6%, respectively, and 39.7% and 7.9% in the control group, respectively. There was no significant difference between groups. We observed 4.9% of thromboembolic event in the neoadjuvant group.ConclusionsThere was no significant increase in morbidity rate in RP after intense neoadjuvant therapy. The association of intense androgen deprivation neoadjuvant therapy with RP and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy may increase the risk of a perioperative thromboembolic events.     

Focal Laser Ablation Versus Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: Survival Outcomes From a Matched Cohort

BackgroundFocal therapy for localized prostate cancer (PCa) remains investigational. We aimed to investigate the oncologic outcomes of focal laser ablation (FLA) and compare them with those of radical prostatectomy (RP).Patients and MethodsPatients treated with FLA or RP for localized PCa between 2004 and 2015 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were utilized to calculate the survival benefits. Propensity score (PS) matching and adjusted standardized mortality ratio weighting (SMRW) models were used to balance the 2 groups. Subgroup analyses according to tumor stage, prostate-specific antigen level, and Gleason score were also conducted.ResultsA total of 12,875 patients were included, of whom 12,433 were treated with RP, whereas 442 were treated with FLA; 321 pairs of patients were eventually matched. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced by PS matching. The mean follow-up was 59.62 months for the RP group and 62.26 months for the FLA group. Before matching, the FLA group had lower but statistically insignificant cancer-specific mortality (CSM) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-2.45; P = .4879) and higher any-cause mortality (ACM) (HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.38-3.98; P = .0016) compared with the RP group, which was supported by the outcomes in the PS-matched cohort (CSM: HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.18-3.67; P = .7936; ACM: HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.38-3.98; P = .0016) and the SMRW model (CSM: HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.15-2.44; P = .4877; ACM: HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.18-3.42; P = .0103).ConclusionOur study suggests that FLA had a higher risk of ACM but an insignificantly lower risk of CSM compared with RP. More high-quality trials are needed to confirm and expand our findings.     

Utility of Anterior Zone Biopsy in Men Enrolled in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

Background

Anterior zone (AZ) disease is present in one-fifth of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer and has been associated with poor pathologic features. However, anterior targeted biopsies are not a routine part of active surveillance (AS) protocols. Our purpose is to assess the utility of AZ sampling for prostate biopsy in patients undergoing surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.

Population-Based Referrals for Adjuvant Radiotherapy After Radical Prostatectomy in Men With Prostate Cancer: Impact of Randomized Trials

IntroductionTo examine the impact of published randomized controlled trial (RCT) data on referrals for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) in patients who had high-risk pathologic features after radical prostatectomy (RP).MethodsIn this population-based, retrospective Canadian study, all patients who received a diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma and underwent RP from 2003-2008 were identified through the Manitoba Cancer Registry. Manual review of pathology reports was performed, and patients who had high-risk pathologic features of extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, or positive surgical margins were included. Referrals for adjuvant RT were examined before and after publication of RCT data to determine their influence on practice. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors related to referral.ResultsOf the 1080 identified patients, 546 (50.6%) had ≥ 1 high-risk pathologic feature. Only 78 (14.3%) of the 546 patients were referred for adjuvant RT within 6 months of RP. Year of diagnosis, in relation to the publication of the RCT, was not significantly associated with referral (P = .60). Higher pT stage (P < .0001), Gleason score (P = .035), and increased distance from cancer center (P = .004) were associated with referral.ConclusionIn patients who had high-risk pathologic features after RP, referral rates for adjuvant RT were low and did not increase after presentation of RCT. Men who had higher pT stage, Gleason score, and rural residence were more likely to be referred.