Dataset Information

Management of low (favourable)-risk prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Most men who are diagnosed with favourable-risk prostate cancer undergo some form of active intervention, despite evidence that treatment will not improve health outcomes for many. The decision to undergo treatment after diagnosis is, in part, related to the inability to precisely determine the long-term risk of harm without treatment. Nevertheless, physicians should consider patient age, overall health, and preferences for living with cancer and the potential side effects of curative treatments, before recommending a management option. This is especially important for older men, given the high level of evidence that those with low-risk disease are unlikely to accrue any benefit from curative intervention. What is known on the subject: Over treatment of favourable-risk prostate cancer is common, especially among older men. What does the study add: A review of the natural history of favourable-risk prostate cancer in the context of choices for management of the disease. •?The management of favourable-risk prostate cancer is controversial, and in the absence of controlled trials to inform best practice, choices are driven by personal beliefs with resultant wide variation in practice patterns. •?Men with favourable-risk prostate cancer diagnosed today often undergo treatments that will not improve overall health outcomes. •?A shared-decision approach for selecting optimal management of favourable-risk disease should account for patient age, overall health, and preferences for living with cancer and the potential side effects of curative treatments.

SUBMITTER: Carter HB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4086468 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Management of low (favourable)-risk prostate cancer.

Carter H Ballentine HB

BJU international 20111201 11

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Most men who are diagnosed with favourable-risk prostate cancer undergo some form of active intervention, despite evidence that treatment will not improve health outcomes for many. The decision to undergo treatment after diagnosis is, in part, related to the inability to precisely determine the long-term risk of harm without treatment. Nevertheless, physicians should consider patient age, overall health, and preferences for living with ca ...[more]

PMID: 22077546

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceUp-front treatment of older men with low-risk prostate cancer can cause morbidity without clear survival benefit; however, most such patients receive treatment instead of observation. The impact of physicians on the management approach is uncertain.ObjectiveTo determine the impact of physicians on the management of low-risk prostate cancer with up-front treatment vs observation.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort of men 66 years and older with low-risk prostate cancer diagnosed from 2006 through 2009. Patient and tumor characteristics were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries. The diagnosing urologist, consulting radiation oncologist, cancer-directed therapy, and comorbid medical conditions were determined from linked Medicare claims. Physician characteristics were obtained from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. Mixed-effects models were used to evaluate management variation and factors associated with observation.Main outcomes and measuresNo cancer-directed therapy within 12 months of diagnosis (observation).ResultsA total of 2145 urologists diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer in 12,068 men, of whom 80.1% received treatment and 19.9% were observed. The case-adjusted rate of observation varied widely across urologists, ranging from 4.5% to 64.2% of patients. The diagnosing urologist accounted for 16.1% of the variation in up-front treatment vs observation, whereas patient and tumor characteristics accounted for 7.9% of this variation. After adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics, urologists who treat non-low-risk prostate cancer (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.55-0.92]; P = .01) and graduated in earlier decades (P = .004) were less likely to manage low-risk disease with observation. Treated patients were more likely to undergo prostatectomy (aOR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.45-2.01]; P < .001), cryotherapy (aOR, 28.2 [95% CI, 19.5-40.9]; P < .001), brachytherapy (aOR, 3.41 [95% CI, 2.96-3.93]; P < .001), or external-beam radiotherapy (aOR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.08-1.58]; P = .005) if their urologist billed for that treatment. Case-adjusted rates of observation also varied across consulting radiation oncologists, ranging from 2.2% to 46.8% of patients.Conclusions and relevanceRates of management of low-risk prostate cancer with observation varied widely across urologists and radiation oncologists. Patients whose diagnosis was made by urologists who treated prostate cancer were more likely to receive up-front treatment and, when treated, more likely to receive a treatment that their urologist performed. Public reporting of physicians' cancer management profiles would enable informed selection of physicians to diagnose and manage prostate cancer.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Among men with clinically low-risk prostate cancer, we have previously documented heterogeneity in terms of clinical characteristics and genomic risk scores. OBJECTIVE:To further study the underlying tumor biology of this patient population, by interrogating broader patterns of gene expression among men with clinically low-risk tumors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Prostate biopsies from 427 patients considered potentially suitable for active surveillance underwent central pathology review and genome-wide expression profiling. These cases were compared with 1290 higher-risk biopsy cases with diverse clinical features from a prospective genomic registry. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:Average genomic risk (AGR) was determined from 18 published prognostic signatures, and MSigDB hallmark gene sets were analyzed using bootstrapped clustering methods. These sets were examined in relation to clinical variables and pathological and biochemical outcomes using multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:A total of 408 (96%) biopsies passed RNA quality control. Based on AGR quartiles defined by the high-risk multicenter cases, the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) low-risk patients were distributed across the quartiles as 219 (54%), 107 (26%), 61 (15%), and 21 (5%). Unsupervised clustering analysis of the hallmark gene set scores revealed three clusters, which were enriched for the previously described PAM50 luminal A, luminal B, and basal subtypes. AGR, but not the clusters, was associated with both pathological (odds ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.58) and biochemical outcomes (hazard ratio 1.53, 95% CI 1.19-1.93). These results may underestimate within-prostate genomic heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS:Prostate cancers that are homogeneously low risk by traditional characteristics demonstrate substantial diversity at the level of genomic expression. Molecular substratification of low-risk prostate cancer will yield a better understanding of its divergent biology and, in the future may help personalize treatment recommendations. PATIENT SUMMARY:We studied the genomic characteristics of tumors from men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. We found three main subtypes of prostate cancer with divergent tumor biology, similar to what has previously been found in women with breast cancer. In addition, we found that genomic risk scores were associated with worse pathology findings and prostate-specific antigen recurrence after surgery. These results suggest even greater genomic diversity among low-risk patients than has previously been documented with more limited signatures.

Project description:PurposeProstate specific antigen velocity is an unreliable predictor of adverse pathology findings in patients on active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. However, to our knowledge a new concept called prostate specific antigen velocity risk count, recently validated in a screening cohort, has not been investigated in an active surveillance cohort.Materials and methodsWe evaluated a cohort of men from 1995 to 2012 with prostate cancer on active surveillance. They had stage T1c disease, prostate specific antigen density less than 0.15 ng/ml, Gleason score 6 or less, 2 or fewer biopsy cores and 50% or less involvement of any core with cancer. The men were observed by semiannual prostate specific antigen measurements, digital rectal examinations and an annual surveillance biopsy. Treatment was recommended for biopsy reclassification. Patients with 30 months or greater of followup and 3 serial prostate specific antigen velocity measurements were used in primary analysis by logistic regression, Cox proportional hazards, Kaplan-Meier analysis and performance parameters, including the AUC of the ROC curve.ResultsPrimary analysis included 275 of 668 men who met very low risk inclusion criteria, of whom 83 (30.2%) were reclassified at a median of 57.1 months. Reclassification risk increased with risk count, that is a risk count of 3 (HR 4.63, 95% CI 1.54-13.87) and 2 (HR 3.73, 95% CI 1.75-7.97) compared to zero. Results were similar for Gleason score reclassification (HR 7.45, 95% CI 1.60-34.71 and 3.96, 95% CI 1.35-11.62, respectively). On secondary analysis the negative predictive value (risk count 1 or less) was 91.5% for reclassification in the next year. Adding the prostate specific antigen velocity risk count improved the AUC in a model including baseline prostate specific antigen density (0.7423 vs 0.6818, p = 0.025) and it outperformed the addition of overall prostate specific antigen velocity (0.7423 vs 0.6960, p = 0.037).ConclusionsProstate specific antigen velocity risk count may be useful for monitoring patients on active surveillance and decreasing the frequency of biopsies needed in the long term.

Project description:ImportanceActive surveillance (AS) is endorsed by clinical guidelines as the preferred management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer, but its use in contemporary clinical practice remains incompletely defined.ObjectiveTo characterize trends over time and practice- and practitioner-level variation in the use of AS in a large, national disease registry.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort study included men with low-risk prostate cancer, defined as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) less than 10 ng/mL, Gleason grade group 1, and clinical stage T1c or T2a, newly diagnosed between January 1, 2014, and June 1, 2021. Patients were identified in the American Urological Association (AUA) Quality (AQUA) Registry, a large quality reporting registry including data from 1945 urology practitioners at 349 practices across 48 US states and territories, comprising more than 8.5 million unique patients. Data are collected automatically from electronic health record systems at participating practices.ExposuresExposures of interest included patient age, race, and PSA level, as well as urology practice and individual urology practitioners.Main outcomes and measuresThe outcome of interest was the use of AS as primary treatment. Treatment was determined through analysis of electronic health record structured and unstructured clinical data and determination of surveillance based on follow-up testing with at least 1 PSA level remaining greater than 1.0 ng/mL.ResultsA total of 20 809 patients in AQUA were diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer and had known primary treatment. The median age was 65 (IQR, 59-70) years; 31 (0.1%) were American Indian or Alaska Native; 148 (0.7%) were Asian or Pacific Islander; 1855 (8.9%) were Black; 8351 (40.1%) were White; 169 (0.8%) were of other race or ethnicity; and 10 255 (49.3%) were missing information on race or ethnicity. Rates of AS increased sharply and consistently from 26.5% in 2014 to 59.6% in 2021. However, use of AS varied from 4.0% to 78.0% at the urology practice level and from 0% to 100% at the practitioner level. On multivariable analysis, year of diagnosis was the variable most strongly associated with AS; age, race, and PSA value at diagnosis were all also associated with odds of surveillance.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study of AS rates in the AQUA Registry found that national, community-based rates of AS have increased but remain suboptimal, and wide variation persists across practices and practitioners. Continued progress on this critical quality indicator is essential to minimize overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer and by extension to improve the benefit-to-harm ratio of national prostate cancer early detection efforts.

Dataset Information

Management of low (favourable)-risk prostate cancer.

Publications

Management of low (favourable)-risk prostate cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets