Surveillance For Localized Prostate Cancer Research Articles

Risk stratification: a tool to predict the course of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer?

To investigate a cohort of patients undergoing active surveillance (AS) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) with regard to possible differences in discontinuation rates, subsequent therapies, reasons for intervention and pathological findings after deferred surgery after patient stratification into very-low-risk, low-risk and intermediate-/high-risk PCa groups. The HAROW study was a non-interventional, observational, outcomes research study on the management of localized PCa in the community setting. A total of 468 patients were prospectively enrolled in the HAROW study, with a mean follow-up of 28.5 months. Treating urologists reported clinical variables, information on therapy and clinical course of disease at 6-month intervals. Of 468 patients under AS, 244 were stratified into very-low-risk, 142 into low-risk and 82 into intermediate-/high-risk groups. Of these patients, 112 discontinued AS. Discontinuation rates were 25.4% in the very-low-risk, 21.1% in the low-risk and 24.4% in the intermediate-/high-risk groups (P = 0.633). The main reasons for intervention were biopsy upgrade and/or prostate-specific antigen elevation in the very-low- and low-risk groups, and patient preference in the intermediate-/high-risk group (P < 0.05). No significant differences were found regarding subsequent therapies and pathological findings after deferred surgery. Our results show no differences in the outcome of risk-stratified patients in the specified risk groups managed with AS, while switching to an invasive treatment on the patient's request was more frequent in the intermediate-/high-risk group.

Timing of Adverse Prostate Cancer Reclassification on First Surveillance Biopsy: Results from the Canary Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study

During active surveillance for localized prostate cancer, the timing of the first surveillance biopsy varies. We analyzed the Canary PASS (Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study) to determine biopsy timing influence on rates of prostate cancer adverse reclassification at the first active surveillance biopsy. Of 1,085 participants in PASS, 421 had fewer than 34% of cores involved with cancer and Gleason sum 6 or less, and thereafter underwent on-study active surveillance biopsy. Reclassification was defined as an increase in Gleason sum and/or 34% or more of cores with prostate cancer. First active surveillance biopsy reclassification rates were categorized as less than 8, 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months after diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression determined association between reclassification and first biopsy timing. Of 421 men, 89 (21.1%) experienced reclassification at the first active surveillance biopsy. Median time from prostate cancer diagnosis to first active surveillance biopsy was 11 months (IQR 7.8-13.8). Reclassification rates at less than 8, 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months were 24%, 19% and 22% (p = 0.65). On multivariable analysis, compared to men biopsied at less than 8 months the OR of reclassification at 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months were 0.88 (95% CI 0.5,1.6) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.5,1.9), respectively. Prostate specific antigen density 0.15 or greater (referent less than 0.15, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1, 4.1) and body mass index 35 kg/m2 or greater (referent less than 25 kg/m2, OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1,5.7) were associated with increased odds of reclassification. Timing of the first active surveillance biopsy was not associated with increased adverse reclassification but prostate specific antigen density and body mass index were. In low risk patients on active surveillance, it may be reasonable to perform the first active surveillance biopsy at a later time, reducing the overall cost and morbidity of active surveillance.

MP15-16 OUTCOMES AND FACTORS CHANGING TO INTERVENTION IN ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF CONTEMPORARY SERIES

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Active Surveillance II1 Apr 2016MP15-16 OUTCOMES AND FACTORS CHANGING TO INTERVENTION IN ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE FOR LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF CONTEMPORARY SERIES Ahmed Aboumohamed, Ilir Agalliu, and Reza Ghavamian Ahmed AboumohamedAhmed Aboumohamed More articles by this author , Ilir AgalliuIlir Agalliu More articles by this author , and Reza GhavamianReza Ghavamian More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.2540AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Active surveillance (AS) is an increasingly utilized treatment modality for patients with localized prostate cancer. Outcomes and factors changing to active treatment vary among different series reporting on AS. A systematic review of the evidence about AS was undertaken, with meta-analysis to identify outcomes and factors changing to active treatment. METHODS We performed Medline and EMBASE literature search to identify studies on AS from 2005 to October 2015. A systematic review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We extracted eligibility criteria, age, PSA, surveillance protocol, sample size, follow-up duration, treatment change triggers, treatment change rates, metastasis, and cancer-specific deaths. The meta-analysis was done with the random effects model in STATA using the ′metan′ command. We plotted forest plots of the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study as well as the pooled random effect HR for the overall effect. Heterogeneity across studies was examined by calculating the i2 statistic. RESULTS A total of 24 AS series comprising 9920 patients were included. Median age was 65.9 years, median PSA was 5.1 ng/dL, and median follow-up was 3.3 years (range 1.5-6.4). Marked heterogeneity was noted among the studies in their inclusion criteria, surveillance protocols, and triggers for intervention. There were 21 prostate cancer deaths and 42 metastases in 38 311 person-years of follow-up; however, when series including patients with Gleason 7 were excluded, there were 6 and 14, respectively, in 21 182 person-years of follow-up. Overall, 24.6% received active treatment with overall pooled HR 0.25 (95% CI 0.24-0.26), with 20.2% were treated due to patient preference/ anxiety. Other factors for conversion to active treatment included pathologic reclassification (Gleason upgrade and/or volume progression); overall pooled HR 0.19 (95% CI 0.17-0.21), or PSA progression; overall pooled HR 0.03 (95% CI 0.02-0.04). Less common triggers included MRI progression or local symptomatic progression. CONCLUSIONS Marked heterogeneity among AS series makes firm conclusions difficult. There was remarkable increased risk of metastasis and cancer death in studies including patients with Gleason 7. Significant proportion was treated due to patient preference triggered by anxiety with no signs of disease progression. There is a strong need for a robust evidence from prospective trials with longer follow-up. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e157-e158 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Ahmed Aboumohamed More articles by this author Ilir Agalliu More articles by this author Reza Ghavamian More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Active surveillance in localized prostate cancer: comparison of incidental tumours (T1a/b) and tumours diagnosed by core needle biopsy (T1c/T2a): results from the HAROW study

To conduct a comparative prospective analysis of patients with incidental T1a/T1b prostate cancer (IPCa) and those with prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosed by core needle biopsy, treated by active surveillance (AS), with regard to inclusion criteria, progression and switch to deferred treatment. The HAROW study is an observational outcomes research study on the management of localized PCa. Treating urologists reported clinical variables and information on therapy and clinical course of disease at 6-month intervals. With respect to therapy, only recommendations were made; the final decision on the therapeutic method rested with the treating physician. Out of 2 957 patients included in the HAROW study, 447 chose AS. The median follow-up was 28.3 months. T1a, T1b, T1c and T2a disease were diagnosed in 81, 18, 292 and 56 patients, respectively. Patients in the IPCa group had lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (4.2 vs 6.1 ng/mL) and more comorbidities than those diagnosed by core needle biospy. The IPCa group also had fewer re-biopsies (25.3 vs 43.2%) and fewer changes to invasive treatment (12.1 vs 25.9%). No significant differences were found with respect to the criteria for discontinuation, subsequent therapies and histological findings after radical prostatectomy. Urologists are highly inclined to use AS as a therapeutic option in IPCa. More patients with IPCa than those diagnosed after core needle biopsy continued on AS, which was also associated with the indication for a re-biopsy being less stringently observed.

Current use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: A nationwide survey in Japan.

To understand the current practice pattern of active surveillance using a nationwide survey among Japanese urologists. A new questionnaire about active surveillance was developed and mailed to 863 training institutes in January 2014. The questionnaire included indications for active surveillance, percentage of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer, problems with active surveillance, which protocol was used, timing of first repeat biopsy, use of prostate-specific antigen or doubling time and use of magnetic resonance imaging. A total of 2133 Japanese urologists in the 632 training institutes answered the questionnaire. The median age was 42 years (26-84 years). Of the responders, 26.9% had no use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance criteria were most frequently used (29.7%), followed by a low-risk group without a definitive follow-up protocol (29.4%). Regarding repeat biopsy, 40.6% carried it out at 1 year after active surveillance initiation, but 24.1% did not usually carry it out and 31.8% carried it out only when they considered it necessary. Magnetic resonance imaging was used routinely in 22.2% and as required in 67.6%. Re-biopsy or magnetic resonance imaging was less carried out in general hospitals than in universities. The percentage of no usual repeat biopsy was significantly higher in urologists who had more than 10 years of experience. Repeat biopsies (60.3%), inadequate inclusion criteria (49.9%), psychological burden for patients (43.7%), unexpected progression (41.1%) and unknown long-term outcomes (40.6%) were considered the major problems of active surveillance in the responders. The practice pattern of active surveillance varies widely among Japanese urologists. It is necessary to gain a correct understanding of active surveillance.

1044 Current use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: A nationwide survey in Japan

1044 Current use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: A nationwide survey in Japan

Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Update

For men with favorable-risk prostate cancer, active surveillance — a strategy of prospectively assessing changes in disease biology, stage, and grade to determine the need for curative intervention — has increasingly become an alternative consideration to immediate therapy in selected patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Now, to provide more robust data on outcomes associated with active surveillance, investigators report updated results of a prospective, single-center, single-arm, cohort study of this …

Wellbeing during Active Surveillance for localised prostate cancer: a systematic review of psychological morbidity and quality of life.

Active Surveillance (AS) is recommended for the treatment of localised prostate cancer; however this option may be under-used, at least in part because of expectations of psychological adverse events in those offered or accepting AS. (1) Determine the impact on psychological wellbeing when treated with AS (non-comparative studies). (2) Compare AS with active treatments for the impact on psychological wellbeing (comparative studies). We used the PRISMA guidelines and searched Medline, PsychInfo, EMBASE, CINHAL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Scopus for articles published January 2000-2014. Eligible studies reported original quantitative data on any measures of psychological wellbeing. We identified 34 eligible articles (n=12,497 individuals); 24 observational, eight RCTs, and two other interventional studies. Studies came from North America (16), Europe (14) Australia (3) and North America/Europe (1). A minority (5/34) were rated as high quality. Most (26/34) used validated instruments, whilst a substantial minority (14/34) used watchful waiting or no active treatment rather than Active Surveillance. There was modest evidence of no adverse impact on psychological wellbeing associated with Active Surveillance; and no differences in psychological wellbeing compared to active treatments. Patients can be informed that Active Surveillance involves no greater threat to their psychological wellbeing as part of the informed consent process, and clinicians need not limit access to Active Surveillance based on an expectation of adverse impacts on psychological wellbeing.

Active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: An analysis of patient contacts and utilization of healthcare resources

Objective. Evidence supports active surveillance (AS) as a means to reduce overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The consequences of close and long-standing follow-up with regard to outpatient visits, tests and repeated biopsies are widely unknown. This study investigated the trajectory and costs of AS in patients with localized PCa. Materials and methods. In total, 317 PCa patients were followed in a prospective, single-arm AS cohort. The primary outcomes were number of patient contacts, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests, biopsies, hospital admissions due to biopsy complications and patients eventually undergoing curative treatment. The secondary outcome was cost. Results. The 5 year cumulative incidence of discontinued AS in a competing-risk model was 40%. During the first 5 years of AS patients underwent a median of two biopsy sets, and patients were seen in an outpatient clinic including PSA testing three to four times annually. In total, 38 of the 406 biopsy sessions led to hospital admission and 87 of the 317 patients required treatment for bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). With a median of 3.7 years’ follow-up, the total cost of AS was euro (€) 1,240,286. Assuming all patients had otherwise undergone primary radical prostatectomy, the cost difference favoured AS with a net benefit of €662,661 (35% reduction). Conclusions. AS entails a close clinical follow-up with a considerable risk of rebiopsy complication, treatment of BOO and subsequent delayed definitive therapy. This risk should be weighed against a potential economic benefit and reduction in the risk of overtreatment compared to immediate radical treatment.

Our results of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer patients.

Active surveillance has become a management option for low-risk prostate cancer patients, while keeping the curative treatment option available. In this study, we evaluated the our results of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer patients. Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who chose an active surveillance protocol were followed with PSA measurements, digital rectal examinations, and TRUS-guided biopsies. The patients' data and rebiopsy results were evaluated. The results were compared with the results of the patients who had definitive treatment. Forty-one patients on active surveillance and 34 patients with at least one rebiopsy were included in the study. Twenty-seven patients who had more than one rebiopsy were followed for an average of 27.7 (12-78) months. Twelve patients (44.4%) had undergone definitive treatment including radical prostatectomy (n=9), and radiotherapy (n=3). There were 17 patients under surveillance after a second biopsy, and 9 (33%) of them had a third biopsy. Among these 9 patients, 7 patients were kept under surveillance, and 2 (7%) them had a fourth biopsy. Active surveillance of 15 out of 17 patients who have not undergone definitive treatment is still ongoing. Active surveillance is a treatment option refrains low-risk prostate cancer patients from the complications of an early or unnecessary definitive treatment and related reduction in the quality of their lives. while keeping the curative treatment option available. Active surveillance can be applied safely with the appropriate patient selection, regular examinations and tests.

Adoption of robot-assisted surgery and its impact on treatment patterns for newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer.

6513 Background: With the rapid increase of robotic surgical systems in hospitals, it is important to understand the impact on treatment patterns for localized prostate cancer. The objective of this study is to determine whether the presence of robotic surgical systems independently influenced rates of surgery, radiation, and active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Methods: We conducted an observational study using National Cancer Database (NCDB) state-level data, 2002-2010. Our study cohort includes patients newly diagnosed with clinical stage I-III prostate cancer from 48 states and Washington D.C. in the United States. The number of robotic systems installed in each state over time was obtained from publicly available information on-line. We characterized the state-level treatment pattern as the proportion of patients having surgery, radiation and active surveillance as their first course of treatment. Results: Between 2002 and 2010, the average number of robotic surgical systems per state increased from 2 to 26.3, while the unadjusted rate of surgery increased from 37.5% to 52.4%, radiation therapy decreased from 43.3% to 30.2%, and active surveillance increased from 7.0% to 9.3%. For every 10 additional robotic systems installed in a state, there would be a 2.5% increased rate of surgery (p&lt;0.01), accompanied by a 1.3% (p=0.04) and 1.0% (p&lt;0.01) decrease in the rate of radiation and active surveillance, respectively. Subgroup analyses suggest that the robotic adoption crowding out effect on radiation and active surveillance was driven primarily by men with stage I-II prostate cancer. If the adoption trajectory for robotic systems continues, the increased cost of treating localized prostate cancer in 2012 will be close to $27 million. Conclusions: During a period of rapid acquisition of robotic surgical systems, we found the number of robotic systems available at the state-level is significantly and directly associated with a higher rate of surgery for localized prostate cancer, and lower rates of radiation therapy and active surveillance.

Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.

Active surveillance for localized prostate cancer entails initial expectant management rather than immediate therapy, with “curative-intent” treatment deferred until there is evidence that the patient is at increased risk for disease progression. This is a response to the clearly documented risks of over diagnosis and overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer, which in most cases poses little or no threat to the patient. It is based upon the prolonged natural history of prostate cancer and is an attempt to balance the risks and side effects of overtreatment against the possibility of disease progression and a lost opportunity for cure. Low-risk prostate cancer is more accurately viewed as one of multiple risk factors for the presence of higher grade prostate cancer. Like atypical small acinar proliferation, (ASAP), it may be managed with close follow up but without radical intervention, unless there is clear evidence of more aggressive disease.

Economic analysis of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer

Active surveillance is gaining wider acceptance in the urologic community as an effective treatment option for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. The purpose of this review is to analyze the economics of active surveillance in comparison with other therapies. Evaluating the economics of active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer is constrained by a prolonged natural history of disease. Recent cost model studies using hypothetical patients with low-risk prostate cancer showed that the estimated direct cost of active surveillance over long term was the lowest compared with direct costs of immediate treatment with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, primary androgen deprivation therapy or brachytherapy. Active surveillance is associated with more quality-adjusted life years than immediate therapies with similar or lower lifetime costs. Physician reimbursement for active surveillance exceeded that from upfront radical prostatectomy after 3-5 years of follow-up and may be an important driving factor for physicians to practice active surveillance. Active surveillance appears to reduce prostate cancer healthcare expenditure by reducing the number of costly therapies. Results from clinical trials will allow the measurement of the true economic value of active surveillance in the future.

Eligibility for Active Surveillance and Pathological Outcomes for Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy in a Large, Community Based Cohort

We analyzed competing active surveillance criteria in men who underwent radical prostatectomy in relation to outcome data in a large, community based cohort. We identified all men from the CaPSURE database who underwent radical prostatectomy from 1999 to 2007 and met inclusion criteria for the stringent prospective University of California-San Francisco and Johns Hopkins active surveillance protocols. Rates of pathological upgrading, up staging and biochemical recurrence were compared. We identified 2,837 men who underwent radical prostatectomy and had complete pathological and followup data available. Of these men 1,375 and 125 met University of California-San Francisco and Johns Hopkins criteria, respectively. When comparing men who met the 2 sets of criteria vs those who met University of California-San Francisco criteria only, there were no significant differences in the rate of upgrading (20% vs 27%, p = 0.07) and up staging (6% vs 8%, p = 0.39) at radical prostatectomy. At a median 36-month followup 5-year biochemical recurrence-free estimates were similar at 92% in men who met the 2 sets of criteria and 90% in those who met the University of California-San Francisco definition only. On multivariate analysis upgrading to 7 or greater (HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.2), up staging (HR 3.5, 95% CI 1.3-9.3), and upgrading plus up staging (HR 6.9, 95% CI 3.3-14.5) were associated with a higher risk of biochemical recurrence in patients who met University of California-San Francisco criteria. Men who met enrollment criteria for the 2 active surveillance protocols had a similar rate of upgrading, up staging and 5-year biochemical recurrence-free rates after radical prostatectomy. Further comparison between current protocols is warranted to establish universal inclusion criteria.

Factors Predicting Prostatic Biopsy Gleason Sum Under Grading

We determined clinical factors affecting the under grading of biopsy Gleason sum compared with prostatectomy pathology and developed a model predicting the probability of under grading. We analyzed a cohort of 1,701 patients treated for prostate cancer at our institution between 1988 and 2007 with complete biopsy and pathological data available. Patients with a biopsy Gleason sum of 7 or less were included in our analysis. Cases were categorized as under graded or not under graded by comparing biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason sums. Logistic regression was used to determine the predictors of under grading based on clinical variables (race, age at diagnosis, body mass index, prostate weight, diagnostic prostate specific antigen, biopsy positive-to-total core ratio, maximal cancer percent in positive cores and time from diagnosis to surgery). A nomogram was developed to calculate the probability of under grading. Results were validated using bootstrapping. Under grading occurred in 46.6% of our cohort. Significant variables predicting under grading were age at diagnosis, biopsy Gleason sum, diagnostic prostate specific antigen, prostate weight, biopsy positive-to-total core ratio and maximal percent of cancer in cores (p <0.05). Nomogram predictive accuracy was 72.4%. The risk of Gleason sum under grading can be predicted to a satisfactory level using our nomogram. Predicting under grading would improve patient consulting and identify those who should consider repeat biopsy, ultimately enhancing the accuracy of prostate cancer diagnosis.

Prostate‐specific antigen velocity in untreated, localized prostate cancer

To report the results of a prospective study of active surveillance of untreated prostate cancer, with a focus on baseline predictors of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) velocity, as PSA velocity before treatment is an important predictor of prostate cancer mortality, and patients on active surveillance are monitored for several years to estimate the PSA velocity and thus select patients for radical treatment. A prospective study of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer opened at the Royal Marsden Hospital in 2002. Eligible patients had clinical stage T1/T2a, N0/Nx, M0/Mx adenocarcinoma of the prostate with a serum PSA level of < 15 ng/mL, a Gleason score of < or = 7 with primary grade < or = 3, and less than half the biopsy cores positive. The PSA velocity before treatment was analysed in relation to baseline clinical characteristics. In all, 237 patients on surveillance were followed for a median of 24 months (median age 67 years; median initial PSA level 6.5 ng/mL; median pretreatment PSA velocity 0.44 ng/mL per year). On multivariate analysis, PSA density (i.e. serum PSA level/prostate volume) was the only significant determinant of PSA velocity (P < 0.001). Patients with a PSA density above or below the median (0.185 ng/mL/mL) had a median (interquartile range) PSA velocity of 0.92 (0.34-1.77) ng/mL per year and 0.35 (-0.06, 0.80) ng/mL per year, respectively. PSA density, which is readily available at the time of diagnosis, is an independent determinant of PSA velocity in untreated, localized prostate cancer. If this is confirmed, PSA density could be used to inform the often difficult choice between active surveillance and immediate radical treatment.

Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: Hardie C, Parker C, Norman A, Eeles R, Horwich A, Huddart R, Dearnaley D, Academic Unit of Radiotherapy and Oncology, The Royal Marsden NHS Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom

To describe the preliminary clinical outcomes of active surveillance (AS), a new strategy aiming to individualize the management of early prostate cancer by selecting only those men with significant cancers for curative therapy, and illustrate the contrast with a policy of watchful waiting (WW). Eighty men with early prostate cancer began AS at the authors’ institution between 1993 and 2002. Eligibility included histologically confirmed prostatic adenocarcinoma, fitness for radical treatment, clinical stage T1/T2, N0/X, M0/X, a prostate specific antigen (PSA) level of ≤20 ng/mL, and a Gleason score of ≤7. PSA was measured and a digital rectal examination conducted at 3–6 month intervals. The decision between continued monitoring or radical treatment was informed by the rate of rise of PSA, and was made according to the judgment of each patient and clinician. During the same period, 32 men with localized prostate cancer (any T stage, N0/X, M0/X, any PSA, Gleason score ≤7) were managed by WW; hormonal treatment was indicated for symptomatic prostate cancer progression. The PSA doubling time (DT) was calculated using linear regression of ln(PSA) against time, using all pretreatment PSA values. At a median follow-up of 42 months, 64 (80%) of the 80 patients on AS remained under observation, 11 (14%) received radical treatment and five (6%) died from other causes. No patient developed evidence of metastatic disease, none started palliative hormone therapy, and there were no deaths from prostate cancer. Of the 11 patients who received radical treatment all remained biochemically controlled with no clinical evidence of recurrent disease. The median PSA DT while on AS was 12 years. Twenty (62%) of the 32 patients on WW remained on observation, eight (25%) received palliative hormonal therapy and four (12%) died, including one from prostate cancer. AS is feasible in selected men with early prostate cancer. The natural history of this disease often appears extremely indolent, and most men on AS will avoid radical treatment. There is a marked contrast between AS (with radical treatment for biochemical progression) and WW (with palliative treatment for symptomatic progression). Ongoing studies are seeking to optimize the AS protocol, and to compare the long-term outcomes with those of immediate radical treatment.

Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer

To describe the preliminary clinical outcomes of active surveillance (AS), a new strategy aiming to individualize the management of early prostate cancer by selecting only those men with significant cancers for curative therapy, and illustrate the contrast with a policy of watchful waiting (WW). Eighty men with early prostate cancer began AS at the authors' institution between 1993 and 2002. Eligibility included histologically confirmed prostatic adenocarcinoma, fitness for radical treatment, clinical stage T1/T2, N0/X, M0/X, a prostate specific antigen (PSA) level of < or = 20 ng/mL, and a Gleason score of < or = 7. PSA was measured and a digital rectal examination conducted at 3-6 month intervals. The decision between continued monitoring or radical treatment was informed by the rate of rise of PSA, and was made according to the judgement of each patient and clinician. During the same period, 32 men with localized prostate cancer (any T stage, N0/X, M0/X, any PSA, Gleason score < or = 7) were managed by WW; hormonal treatment was indicated for symptomatic prostate cancer progression. The PSA doubling time (DT) was calculated using linear regression of ln(PSA) against time, using all pretreatment PSA values. At a median follow-up of 42 months, 64 (80%) of the 80 patients on AS remained under observation, 11 (14%) received radical treatment and five (6%) died from other causes. No patient developed evidence of metastatic disease, none started palliative hormone therapy, and there were no deaths from prostate cancer. Of the 11 patients who received radical treatment all remained biochemically controlled with no clinical evidence of recurrent disease. The median PSA DT while on AS was 12 years. Twenty (62%) of the 32 patients on WW remained on observation, eight (25%) received palliative hormonal therapy and four (12%) died, including one from prostate cancer. AS is feasible in selected men with early prostate cancer. The natural history of this disease often appears extremely indolent, and most men on AS will avoid radical treatment. There is a marked contrast between AS (with radical treatment for biochemical progression) and WW (with palliative treatment for symptomatic progression). Ongoing studies are seeking to optimize the AS protocol, and to compare the long-term outcomes with those of immediate radical treatment.