Dataset Information

How Active is Active Surveillance? Intensity of Followup during Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in the United States.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:While major prostate cancer active surveillance programs recommend repeat testing such as prostate specific antigen and prostate biopsy, to our knowledge compliance with such testing is unknown. We determined whether men in the community receive the same intensity of active surveillance testing as in prospective active surveillance protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study of men 66 years old or older in the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare database. These men were diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2001 to 2009, did not receive curative therapy in the year after diagnosis and underwent 1 or more post-diagnosis prostate biopsies. We used multivariable adjusted Poisson regression to determine the association of the frequency of active surveillance testing with patient demographics and clinical features. In 1,349 men with 5 years of followup we determined the proportion who underwent testing as intense as that recommended by the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and PRIAS (Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance) programs, including 14 or more PSA tests and 2 or more biopsies, and The Johns Hopkins program, including 10 or more prostate specific antigen tests and 4 or more biopsies. RESULTS:Among 5,192 patients undergoing active surveillance greater than 80% had 1 or more prostate specific antigen tests per year but fewer than 13% underwent biopsy beyond the first 2 years. Magnetic resonance imaging was rarely done during the study period. On multivariable analysis recent diagnosis and higher income were associated with a higher frequency of surveillance biopsy while older age and greater comorbidity were associated with fewer biopsies. African American men underwent fewer prostate specific antigen tests but a similar number of biopsies. During 5 years of active surveillance only 11.1% and 5.0% of patients met the testing standards of the Sunnybrook/PRIAS and The Johns Hopkins programs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:In the community few elderly men receive the intensity of active surveillance testing recommended in major prospective active surveillance programs.

SUBMITTER: Loeb S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5010531 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How Active is Active Surveillance? Intensity of Followup during Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in the United States.

Loeb Stacy S Walter Dawn D Curnyn Caitlin C Gold Heather T HT Lepor Herbert H Makarov Danil V DV

The Journal of urology 20160302 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>While major prostate cancer active surveillance programs recommend repeat testing such as prostate specific antigen and prostate biopsy, to our knowledge compliance with such testing is unknown. We determined whether men in the community receive the same intensity of active surveillance testing as in prospective active surveillance protocols.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We performed a retrospective cohort study of men 66 years old or older in the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology ...[more]

PMID: 26946161

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ImportanceActive surveillance is increasingly recognized as the preferred standard of care for men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, active surveillance requires repeated assessments, including prostate-specific antigen tests and biopsies that may increase anxiety, risk of complications, and cost.ObjectiveTo identify and validate clinical parameters that can identify men who can safely defer follow-up prostate cancer assessments.Design, setting, and participantsThe Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) is a multicenter, prospective active surveillance cohort study initiated in July 2008, with ongoing accrual and a median follow-up period of 4.1 years. Men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance from 9 North American academic medical centers were enrolled. Blood tests and biopsies were conducted on a defined schedule for least 5 years after enrollment. Model validation was performed among men at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) who did not enroll in PASS. Men with Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer diagnosed since 2003 and enrolled in PASS before 2017 with at least 1 confirmatory biopsy after diagnosis were included. A total of 850 men met these criteria and had adequate follow-up. For the UCSF validation study, 533 active surveillance patients meeting the same criteria were identified. Exclusion criteria were treatment within 6 months of diagnosis, diagnosis before 2003, Gleason grade score of at least 2 at diagnosis or first surveillance biopsy, no surveillance biopsy, or missing data.ExposuresActive surveillance for prostate cancer.Main outcomes and measuresTime from confirmatory biopsy to reclassification, defined as Gleason grade group 2 or higher on subsequent biopsy.ResultsA total of 850 men (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [58-68] years; 774 [91%] White) were included in the PASS cohort. A total of 533 men (median [interquartile range] age, 61 [57-65] years; 422 [79%] White) were included in the UCSF cohort. Parameters predictive of reclassification on multivariable analysis included maximum percent positive cores (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30 [95% CI, 1.09-1.56]; P = .004), history of any negative biopsy after diagnosis (1 vs 0: HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.38-0.71]; P < .001 and ≥2 vs 0: HR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.08-0.4]; P < .001), time since diagnosis (HR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.28-2.05]; P < .001), body mass index (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.05-1.12]; P < .001), prostate size (HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.25-0.62]; P < .001), prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis (HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.15-1.98]; P = .003), and prostate-specific antigen kinetics (HR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.23-1.73]; P < .001). For prediction of nonreclassification at 4 years, the area under the receiver operating curve was 0.70 for the PASS cohort and 0.70 for the UCSF validation cohort. This model achieved a negative predictive value of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.94) for those in the bottom 25th percentile of risk and of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.89-1.00) for those in the bottom 10th percentile.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, among men with low-risk prostate cancer, heterogeneity prevailed in risk of subsequent disease reclassification. These findings suggest that active surveillance intensity can be modulated based on an individual's risk parameters and that many men may be safely monitored with a substantially less intensive surveillance regimen.

Project description:BackgroundThe routine clinical use of serum prostatic specific antigen (PSA) testing has allowed earlier detection of low-grade prostate cancer (PCa) with more favourable characteristics, leading to increased acceptance of management by active surveillance (AS). AS aims to avoid over treatment in men with low and intermediate-risk PCa and multiple governing bodies have described several AS protocols. This study provides a descriptive profile of the Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) AS cohort as a platform for future research in AS pathways in PCa.MethodsDemographic and baseline characteristics were retrospectively collected in a database for patients at the GSTT AS clinic with prospective collection of follow-up data from 2012. Seven hundred eighty-eight men being monitored at GSTT with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk PCa, at least 1 follow-up appointment and diagnostic characteristics consistent with AS criteria were included in the profile. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariable Cox proportion hazards regression models were used to characterize the cohort.DiscussionA relatively large proportion of the cohort includes men of African/Afro-Caribbean descent (22%). More frequent use of magnetic resonance imaging and trans-perineal biopsies at diagnosis was observed among patients diagnosed after 2012. Those who underwent trans-rectal ultrasound diagnostic biopsy received their first surveillance biopsy 20 months earlier than those who underwent trans-perineal diagnostic biopsy. At 3 years, 76.1% men remained treatment free. Predictors of treatment progression included Gleason score 3 + 4 (Hazard ratio (HR): 2.41, 95% Confidence interval (CI): 1.79-3.26) and more than 2 positive cores taken at biopsy (HR: 2.65, CI: 1.94-3.62). A decreased risk of progressing to treatment was seen among men diagnosed after 2012 (HR: 0.72, CI: 0.53-0.98).ConclusionAn organised biopsy surveillance approach, via two different AS pathways according to the patient's diagnostic method, can be seen within the GSTT cohort. Risk of patients progressing to treatment has decreased in the period since 2012 compared with the prior period with more than half of the cohort remaining treatment free at 5 years, highlighting that the fundamental aims of AS at GSTT are being met. Thus, this cohort is a good resource to investigate the AS treatment pathway.

Dataset Information

How Active is Active Surveillance? Intensity of Followup during Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in the United States.

Publications

How Active is Active Surveillance? Intensity of Followup during Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets