MP62-11 OUTCOMES OF SCHEDULED VERSUS FOR CAUSE BIOPSY REGIMENS FOR PROSTATE CANCER ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized VII1 Apr 2014MP62-11 OUTCOMES OF SCHEDULED VERSUS FOR CAUSE BIOPSY REGIMENS FOR PROSTATE CANCER ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE Tareq Altartir, Christine Murekeyisoni, Diana Mehedint, Eric Kauffman, James Mohler, and Kristopher Attwood Tareq AltartirTareq Altartir More articles by this author , Christine MurekeyisoniChristine Murekeyisoni More articles by this author , Diana MehedintDiana Mehedint More articles by this author , Eric KauffmanEric Kauffman More articles by this author , James MohlerJames Mohler More articles by this author , and Kristopher AttwoodKristopher Attwood More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.1968AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Accumulating data support active surveillance as a valid option for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)low or select intermediate risk prostate cancer (CaP) patients. However, the need for, and timing of, surveillance prostate biopsy remains controversial. We compared 2 surveillance regimens that differed in whether or not patients were monitored with annual/biannual biopsy in addition to clinically indicated biopsy. METHODS 308 consecutive men who chose active surveillance for CaP management at an NCCN cancer center with ¡Ý 6 months follow-up were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were divided into 2 groups at initiation of surveillance; group 1 included patients of one surgeon who underwent biopsy based on clinical concern alone (for cause biopsy); group 2 included patients of 4 surgeons who intended biopsy annually or biannually in addition to for cause biopsy. The primary outcome measure was progression to treatment, and the secondary outcome measure was clinicopathologic progression in NCCN risk classification. Time to progression was compared between groups using Kaplan-Meier methods and log-rank tests. RESULTS Baseline characteristics of groups 1 and 2 were similar with respect to age, race, PSA, stage, Gleason grade, and NCCN risk group. At a mean/median follow-up of 36/29 months (range 6-212) for group 1 and 51/47 months (range 6-142) for group 2, no patient died of CaP and 1 patient developed metastasis in Group 2 after 123 months. Adjusting for differences in follow-up time, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in rate of conversion to treatment (Figure). Group 2 trended towards increased risk for progression to a higher NCCN risk group, but this did not reach statistical significance (Figure). CONCLUSIONS The risks of conversion to treatment and NCCN risk group progression are similar whether or not one performs scheduled biopsy in addition to for cause biopsy. Longer follow- up with attention to metastasis and cancer-specific mortality outcomes is needed to identify the ideal surveillance program. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e721 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Tareq Altartir More articles by this author Christine Murekeyisoni More articles by this author Diana Mehedint More articles by this author Eric Kauffman More articles by this author James Mohler More articles by this author Kristopher Attwood More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...