Characteristics and experiences of patients with localized prostate cancer who left an active surveillance program.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Berger ZD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4332784 | biostudies-literature | 2014
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Characteristics and experiences of patients with localized prostate cancer who left an active surveillance program.
Berger Zackary D ZD Yeh Jonathan C JC Carter H Ballentine HB Pollack Craig Evan CE
The patient 20140101 4
<h4>Background</h4>Understanding the experiences of men leaving active surveillance programs is critical to making such programs viable for men with localized prostate cancer.<h4>Objective</h4>To generate hypotheses about the factors that influence patients' decisions to leave an active surveillance program.<h4>Methods</h4>Using data from the Johns Hopkins active surveillance cohort, bivariate analyses and multinomial regression models examined characteristics of men who self-elected to leave, t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesMen diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer are typically eligible for active surveillance of their cancer, involving monitoring for cancer progression and making judgements about the risks of prostate cancer against those of active intervention. Our study examined how risk for prostate cancer is perceived and experienced by patients undergoing active surveillance with their clinicians, how risk is communicated in clinical consultations, and the implications for treatment and care.MethodParticipants were nine patients and three clinicians from a university hospital urology clinic. A staged, qualitative, multi-method data collection approach was undertaken, comprising: observations of consultations; patient and clinician interviews; and patient surveys. The three data sets were analysed separately using thematic analysis and then integrated to give a comprehensive view of patient and clinician views.ResultsThirty data points (eight patient surveys; 10 observations of consultations between patients and clinicians; 10 patient interviews; and two clinician interviews) combined to create a detailed picture of how patients perceived and appraised risk, in three themes of "Making sense of risk", "Talking about risk" and "Responding to risk".ConclusionEffective risk communication needs to be finely tuned and timed to individual patient's priorities and information requirements. A structured information exchange process that identifies patients' priorities, and details key moments in risk assessment, so that complexities of risk are discussed in ways that are meaningful to patients, may benefit patient care. These findings could inform the development of patient-centric risk assessment procedures and service delivery models in prostate cancer care more broadly.
| S-EPMC6803412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe objective is to provide guidance on the role of active surveillance (AS) as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer patients and to ensure that AS is offered to appropriate patients assessed by a standardized protocol. Prostate cancer is often a slowly progressive or sometimes non-progressive indolent disease diagnosed at an early stage with localized tumours that are unlikely to cause morbidity or death. Standard active treatments for prostate cancer include radiotherapy (RT) or radical prostatectomy (RP), but the harms from over diagnosis and overtreatment are of a significant concern. AS is increasingly being considered as a management strategy to avoid or delay the potential harms caused by unnecessary radical treatment.MethodsA literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, guideline databases and relevant meeting proceedings was performed and a systematic review of identified evidence was synthesized to make recommendations relating to the role of AS in the management of localized prostate cancer.ResultsNo exiting guidelines or reviews were suitable for use in the synthesis of evidence for the recommendations, but 59 reports of primary studies were identified. Due to studies being either non-comparative or heterogeneous, pooled meta-analyses were not conducted.ConclusionThe working group concluded that for patients with low-risk (Gleason score ≤6) localized prostate cancer, AS is the preferred disease management strategy. Active treatment (RP or RT) is appropriate for patients with intermediate-risk (Gleason score 7) localized prostate cancer. For select patients with low-volume Gleason 3+4=7 localized prostate cancer, AS can be considered.
| S-EPMC4479637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeActive surveillance is increasingly used as a management strategy for localized prostate cancer. Coffee intake has been associated with a lower prostate cancer incidence. We assessed whether coffee was associated with disease progression in men on active surveillance.Materials and methodsA total of 411 patients with newly diagnosed Gleason score 6 or 7 prostate cancer were enrolled on a prospective active surveillance protocol for at least 6 months and completed a baseline dietary assessment. The active surveillance protocol included a biennial monitoring regimen with disease progression defined as an increase in the Gleason score. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate associations of coffee intake with progression-free survival. We also evaluated patient genotype in the caffeine metabolism related single nucleotide polymorphism rs762551.ResultsMedian followup was 36 months (range 6 to 126) and the Gleason score progressed in 76 of the 411 patients (18.5%). Compared to 0 cups per day, in the multivariable model adjusting for prostate specific antigen, patient age and tumor length, less than 1 cup (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.40-1.71), 1 to 1.9 cups (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.29-1.43), 2 to 3.9 cups (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.35-1.47) and 4 cups or more (HR 1.67, 95% CI 0.81-3.45) were not significantly associated with progression-free survival (p for nonlinearity = 0.01). Patients with low/moderate coffee intake and the AA fast caffeine metabolizer genotype were less likely to experience grade progression than nonconsumers (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15-0.88, p = 0.03).ConclusionsLow to moderate coffee intake appears safe in men on active surveillance of localized prostate cancer. Further work is needed to determine whether high consumption is associated with shorter progression-free survival in sensitive groups.
| S-EPMC9798525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:An increasing proportion of prostate cancer is being managed conservatively. However, there are no randomized trials or consensus regarding the optimal follow-up strategy. OBJECTIVE:To compare life expectancy and quality of life between watchful waiting (WW) versus different strategies of active surveillance (AS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:A Markov model was created for US men starting at age 50, diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who chose conservative management by WW or AS using different testing protocols (prostate-specific antigen every 3-6 mo, biopsy every 1-5 yr, or magnetic resonance imaging based). Transition probabilities and utilities were obtained from the literature. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:Primary outcomes were life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes include radical treatment, metastasis, and prostate cancer death. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:All AS strategies yielded more life years compared with WW. Lifetime risks of prostate cancer death and metastasis were, respectively, 5.42% and 6.40% with AS versus 8.72% and 10.30% with WW. AS yielded more QALYs than WW except in cohorts age >65 yr at diagnosis, or when treatment-related complications were long term. The preferred follow-up strategy was also sensitive to whether people value short-term over long-term benefits (time preference). Depending on the AS protocol, 30-41% underwent radical treatment within 10 yr. Extending the surveillance biopsy interval from 1 to 5 yr reduced life years slightly, with a 0.26 difference in QALYs. CONCLUSIONS:AS extends life more than WW, particularly for men with higher-risk features, but this is partly offset by the decrement in quality of life since many men eventually receive treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY:More intensive active surveillance protocols extend life more than watchful waiting, but this is partly offset by decrements in quality of life from subsequent treatment.
| S-EPMC5694372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Active surveillance is a strategy to delay or prevent treatment of indolent prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria were developed to select patients for prostate cancer active surveillance. The objective of this study was to compare pathological findings from PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients.A D'Amico low-risk cohort of 1512 radical prostatectomy patients treated at The Ottawa Hospital or Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre between January 1995 and December 2007 was reviewed. Pathological outcomes (pT3 tumours, Gleason sum ≥7, lymph node metastases, or a composite) and clinical outcomes (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] recurrence, secondary cancer treatments, and death) were compared between PRIAS-eligible and PRIAS-ineligible cohorts.The PRIAS-eligible cohort (n=945) was less likely to have Gleason score ≥7 (odds ratio [OR] 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.75), pT3 (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.31-0.55), nodal metastases (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.10-1.31), or any adverse feature (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45-0.69) compared to the PRIAS-ineligible cohort. The probability of any adverse pathology in the PRIAS-eligible cohort was 41% vs. 56% in the PRIAS-ineligible cohort. At median follow-up of 3.7 years, 72 (4.8%) patients had a PSA recurrence, 24 (1.6%) received pelvic radiation, and 13 (0.9%) received androgen deprivation. No difference was detected for recurrence-free and overall survival between groups (recurrence hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; 95% CI 0.46-1.09 and survival HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.36-1.47).Low-risk prostate cancer patients who met PRIAS eligibility criteria are less likely to have higher-risk cancer compared to those who did not meet at least one of these criteria.
| S-EPMC5542829 | biostudies-other
Project description:Many men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer can postpone definitive treatment without raising their risk of metastasis or death from disease. Active surveillance (AS) is a method of monitoring select men, with the option of switching to active treatment upon signs of progression, thereby avoiding the well-known side-effects of surgery and radiotherapy. This review analyzes the data from long-running AS cohorts to determine the safety and efficacy of AS. We conducted a narrative review of recently published data, including 14 articles from 13 AS cohorts. The cohorts used varying inclusion criteria, with reported differences in clinical T stage and Gleason Score (Grade Group), among other features. Some studies (n=5) limited their cohorts to low-risk patients, while others (n=8) also included intermediate-risk patients. The heterogeneity of the cohorts produced mixed results, with the risk of prostate cancer metastasis ranging from 0.1-1.0% at 10 years and the risk of prostate cancer mortality ranging from 0-1.9% at 10 years. However, the majority of studies reported risks of less than 0.5% at 10 years for both metastasis and death. For most cohorts, half of men remained untreated for 5-10 years, with estimates ranging from 37% receiving active treatment in the Toronto cohort to 73% in the Prostate Cancer Research International AS (PRIAS) study. Current data do not support the use of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to avoid scheduled biopsy. Taken together, the data collected from these AS cohorts suggests that AS is a safe approach for men with low-grade prostate cancer and some men with intermediate risk disease. AS should be more broadly implemented for eligible patients to avoid the decreases in quality of life from undergoing active treatment. Studies expanding the inclusion criteria and further defining a subset of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer who might safely benefit from AS are needed to assess the long-term outcomes of using AS in intermediate-risk groups.
| S-EPMC8261451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe rate of primary and secondary treatment while on active surveillance (AS) for localized prostate cancer at the general population level is unknown. Our objective was to determine the patterns of secondary treatments after primary surgery or radiation for patients who undergo AS.MethodsThis was a population-based retrospective cohort study of men aged 50-80 years old in Ontario, Canada, between 2008 and 2016. We identified 26 742 patients with prostate cancer, a Gleason grade score ≤7, and an index prostate-specific antigen ≤10 ng/mL. Patients were categorized as undergoing AS with or without delayed primary treatment (DT; treatment >6 months after diagnosis) versus immediate treatment (IT; treatment ≤6 months). Patients receiving DT and IT were propensity score matched and the rate of secondary treatment (surgery or radiation ± androgen deprivation treatment) was compared using Cox proportional hazards models.ResultsWe identified 10 214 patients who underwent AS and 11 884 patients who underwent IT. Among patients undergoing AS, 3724 (36.5%) eventually underwent DT and among them, 406 (10.9%) underwent secondary treatment. The median time to DT was 1.2 years (IQR 0.5-8.1 years). The relative rate of undergoing secondary treatment was similar in the DT vs IT group (HR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.79-1.08). The risk of death in the DT group was higher compared to patients who did not undergo treatment (HR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.01-1.49).ConclusionsAmong patients with localized prostate cancer on AS, one third undergo DT. The rate of secondary treatment was similar between the DT and IT groups. Patients in the DT group may experience a higher risk of mortality compared to those who remained on AS.
| S-EPMC7541139 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study was conducted to describe the changes in repeat multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) occurring in prostate cancer (PCa) patients during active surveillance (AS), and to study possible associations between mpMRI-related parameters in predicting prostate biopsy (Bx) Gleason score (GS) upgrading >3+3 and protocol-based treatment change (TC).The study cohort consisted of 76 AS patients with GS 3+3 PCa and at least two consecutive mpMRIs of the prostate performed between 2006-2015. Patients were followed according to the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol and an additional mpMRI. The primary end points were GS upgrading (GU) (>3+3) in protocol-based Bxs and protocol-based TC.Out of 76 patients, 53 (69%) had progression (PIRADS upgrade, size increase or new lesion[s]), while 18 (24%) had radiologically stable disease, and 5 (7%) had regression (PIRADS or size decrease, disappearance of lesion[s]) in repeat mpMRIs during AS. PIRADS scores of 4-5 in the initial mpMRI were associated with GU (p = 0.008) and protocol-based TC (p = 0.009). Tumour progression on repeat mpMRIs was associated with TC (p = 0.045) but not with GU (p = 1.00). PIRADS scores of 4-5 predict GU (sensitivity 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI); 0.51-0.95, specificity 0.62 [95% CI; 0.52-0.77]) with PPV and NPV values of 0.34 (95% CI; 0.21-0.55) and 0.93 (95% CI; 0.80-0.98), respectively.mpMRI is a useful tool not only to select but also to monitor PCa patients on AS.
| S-EPMC5744936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThere are few published studies prospectively assessing pharmacological interventions that may delay prostate cancer progression in patients undergoing active surveillance (AS).ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide monotherapy plus AS vs AS alone in patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThe ENACT study was a phase 2, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted from June 2016 to August 2020 at 66 US and Canadian sites. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had received a diagnosis of histologically proven low-risk or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer within 6 months of screening, and were undergoing AS. Patients were monitored during 1 year of treatment and up to 2 years of follow-up. Data analysis was conducted in February 2021.InterventionsRandomized 1:1 to enzalutamide, 160 mg, monotherapy for 1 year or continued AS, as stratified by cancer risk and follow-up biopsy type.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was time to pathological or therapeutic prostate cancer progression (pathological, ≥1 increase in primary or secondary Gleason pattern or ≥15% increased cancer-positive cores; therapeutic, earliest occurrence of primary therapy for prostate cancer). Secondary end points included incidence of a negative biopsy result, percentage of cancer-positive cores, and incidence of a secondary rise in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at 1 and 2 years, as well as time to PSA progression. Adverse events were monitored to assess safety.ResultsA total of 114 patients were randomized to treatment with enzalutamide plus AS and 113 to AS alone; baseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms (mean [SD] age, 66.1 [7.8] years; 1 Asian individual [0.4%], 21 Black or African American individuals [9.3%], 1 Hispanic individual [0.4%], and 204 White individuals [89.9%]). Enzalutamide significantly reduced the risk of prostate cancer progression by 46% vs AS (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.89; P = .02). Compared with AS, odds of a negative biopsy result were 3.5 times higher; there was a significant reduction in the percentage of cancer-positive cores and the odds of a secondary rise in serum PSA levels at 1 year with treatment with enzalutamide; no significant difference was observed at 2 years. Treatment with enzalutamide also significantly delayed PSA progression by 6 months vs AS (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.97; P = .03). The most commonly reported adverse events during enzalutamide treatment were fatigue (62 [55.4%]) and gynecomastia (41 [36.6%]). Three patients in the enzalutamide arm died; none were receiving the study drug at the time of death. No deaths were considered treatment-related.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that enzalutamide monotherapy was well-tolerated and demonstrated a significant treatment response in patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer. Enzalutamide may provide an alternative treatment option for patients undergoing AS.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02799745.
| S-EPMC9204619 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Nutritional Prevention of Cancer trial showed a 52% lower incidence of prostate cancer in men supplemented with selenium. As a result, our study was designed to assess whether selenium supplementation attenuates the progression of prostate cancer. A phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted in men with localized nonmetastatic prostate cancer who had elected to forgo active treatment and be followed by active surveillance. A total of 140 men were randomized to placebo (n = 46), 200 microg/d (n = 47), or 800 microg/d (n = 47) selenium p.o. (as selenized yeast) and followed every 3 months for up to 5 years. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) velocity was used as a marker of prostate cancer progression and was estimated using mixed-effects regression. Adjusting for age, body mass index, baseline selenium, smoking, baseline PSA, race, PSA method, and Gleason score, PSA velocities for the 200 microg/d and 800 microg/d treatment groups were not statistically significantly different from placebo (P = 0.32 and P = 0.61, respectively). In the highest quartile of baseline selenium, men supplemented with 800 microg selenium showed statistically significantly higher PSA velocity as compared with placebo (P = 0.018). Selenium supplementation did not show a protective effect on PSA velocity in subjects with localized prostate cancer. On the contrary, supplementation with high-dose selenium was observed to be a risk factor for increased PSA velocity in men with high baseline plasma selenium concentrations.
| S-EPMC4533875 | biostudies-literature