PD62-06 GG2 INTERMEDIATE RISK PROSTATE CANCER - POPULATION-BASED ANALYSIS OF AS OUTCOMES CONFIRMS WORSE CANCER-SPECIFIC AND OVERALL-SURVIVAL COMPARED TO ACTIVE TREATMENT

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Active Surveillance II (PD62)1 Apr 2020PD62-06 GG2 INTERMEDIATE RISK PROSTATE CANCER - POPULATION-BASED ANALYSIS OF AS OUTCOMES CONFIRMS WORSE CANCER-SPECIFIC AND OVERALL-SURVIVAL COMPARED TO ACTIVE TREATMENT Nicholas Bowler*, Adam Schneider, Hanan Goldberg, James Ryan Mark, Edouard John Trabulsi, Costas D. Lallas, Leonard G. Gomella, and Thenappan Chandrasekar Nicholas Bowler*Nicholas Bowler* More articles by this author , Adam SchneiderAdam Schneider More articles by this author , Hanan GoldbergHanan Goldberg More articles by this author , James Ryan MarkJames Ryan Mark More articles by this author , Edouard John TrabulsiEdouard John Trabulsi More articles by this author , Costas D. LallasCostas D. Lallas More articles by this author , Leonard G. GomellaLeonard G. Gomella More articles by this author , and Thenappan ChandrasekarThenappan Chandrasekar More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000979.06AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: While active surveillance (AS) is an established standard of care for low-risk (LR) prostate cancer (PCa), its utility for favorable intermediate risk (fIR) PCa is less evident. Growing evidence from prospective studies suggests worse outcomes on AS. Prior retrospective studies have been limited by inability to differentiate between AS or watchful waiting (WW). Herein, using a recent update in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Database, we provide the first population-level analysis of AS, WW and AT for LR and fIR PCa. METHODS: Men diagnosed with cN0M0 localized Gleason Grade Group (GG) 1-2 PCa between 2010-2015 were identified. Patients were stratified by GG and initial treatment into 6 cohorts; initial treatment was defined as AS, WW, or AT (first line surgery or radiation therapy), utilizing the new “Watchful waiting recode (2010+)” variable. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to compare cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). All statistics were performed using SPSS®, version 23.0. RESULTS: 162,804 men were diagnosed with cT1-4N0M0 localized GG1 or GG2 PCa between 2010-2015. Full demographics of patients, stratified by GG and initial treatment modality, are seen in Table 1. GG2 patients on AS have worse CSS and OS than GG2 patients who received AT and GG1 patients treated with AS or AT. WW patients (GG1 and GG2) have the worst survival outcomes of any cohort (Figure 1) (log rank tests p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: With improved distinction between WW and AS in the SEER dataset, it is evident that GG2 patients placed on AS have worse CSS and OS than comparable cohorts. In conjunction with increasing data from prospective cohorts, AS should not be the preferred treatment modality for GG2 PCa. Source of Funding: Not Applicable © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e1287-e1288 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Nicholas Bowler* More articles by this author Adam Schneider More articles by this author Hanan Goldberg More articles by this author James Ryan Mark More articles by this author Edouard John Trabulsi More articles by this author Costas D. Lallas More articles by this author Leonard G. Gomella More articles by this author Thenappan Chandrasekar More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...