Dataset Information

A modified Delphi study to develop a practical guide for selecting patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Active surveillance (AS) is a management option for men diagnosed with lower risk prostate cancer. There is wide variation in all aspects of AS internationally, from patient selection to investigations and follow-up intervals, and a lack of clear evidence on the optimal approach to AS. This study aimed to provide guidance for clinicians from an international panel of prostate cancer experts.

Methods

A modified Delphi approach was undertaken, utilising two rounds of online questionnaires followed by a face-to-face workshop. Participants indicated their level of agreement with statements relating to patient selection for AS via online questionnaires on a 7-point Likert scale. Factors not achieving agreement were iteratively developed between the two rounds of questionnaires. Draft statements were presented at the face-to-face workshop for discussion and consensus building.

Results

12 prostate cancer experts (9 urologists, 2 academics, 1 radiation oncologist) participated in this study from a range of geographical regions (4 USA, 4 Europe, 4 Australia). Complete agreement on statements presented to the participants was 29.4% after Round One and 69.0% after Round Two. Following robust discussions at the face-to-face workshop, agreement was reached on the remaining statements. PSA, PSA density, Multiparametric MRI, and systematic biopsy (with or without targeted biopsy) were identified as minimum diagnostic tests required upon which to select patients to recommend AS as a treatment option for prostate cancer. Patient factors and clinical parameters that identified patients appropriate to potentially receive AS were agreed. Genetic and genomic testing was not recommended for use in clinical decision-making regarding AS.

Conclusions

The lack of consistency in the practice of AS for men with lower risk prostate cancer between and within countries was reflected in this modified Delphi study. There are, however, areas of common practice and agreement from which clinicians practicing in the current environment can use to inform their clinical practice to achieve the best outcomes for patients.

SUBMITTER: Merriel SWD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7863517 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A modified Delphi study to develop a practical guide for selecting patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance.

Merriel Samuel W D SWD Moon Daniel D Dundee Phil P Corcoran Niall N Carroll Peter P Partin Alan A Smith Joseph A JA Hamdy Freddie F Moore Caroline C Ost Piet P Costello Tony T

BMC urology 20210204 1

<h4>Background</h4>Active surveillance (AS) is a management option for men diagnosed with lower risk prostate cancer. There is wide variation in all aspects of AS internationally, from patient selection to investigations and follow-up intervals, and a lack of clear evidence on the optimal approach to AS. This study aimed to provide guidance for clinicians from an international panel of prostate cancer experts.<h4>Methods</h4>A modified Delphi approach was undertaken, utilising two rounds of onli ...[more]

PMID: 33541309

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe National Comprehensive Cancer Network® recommends that selected men with grade group 2 prostate cancer be considered for active surveillance. However, selecting which patients with grade group 2 disease can be safely managed by active surveillance remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with adverse pathology in the radical prostatectomy specimen of men with favorable risk grade group 2 prostate cancer, which could help select patients for active surveillance.Materials and methodsWe retrospectively analyzed a cohort of patients with favorable grade group 2 disease who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2010 and 2019. Preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was scored as negative (no identifiable lesion), positive (identifiable lesion) or equivocal. We defined a multivariable logistic regression model with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging score as the predictor and adverse pathology (up staging to T3a/b disease, upgrading to ≥grade group 3 or lymph node invasion) as the outcome, adjusting for preoperative prostate specific antigen, biopsy Gleason grade, clinical stage, and number of negative and positive prostate biopsy cores. Secondary outcomes of biochemical recurrence, grade group upgrading alone and the added value of incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging data into the nomogram were also investigated.ResultsWe identified 1,117 patients with favorable risk grade group 2 disease who underwent radical prostatectomy. Positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was associated with higher rates of adverse pathology (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.75-3.40, p <0.0001) and upgrading (OR 3.89, 95% CI 2.00-7.56, p <0.0001). However, as our study included only grade group 2 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, our cohort may represent a higher risk group than grade group 2 patients as a whole. Adding multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging results to a standard prediction model led to higher net benefit on decision curve analysis. An identifiable lesion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was associated with an increased risk of aggressive pathological features in the radical prostatectomy specimen of patients with favorable risk grade group 2 prostate cancer who were potential active surveillance candidates. This information could be used to inform biopsy strategy, counsel patients on treatment options and guide strategies for those on active surveillance.ConclusionsCombining multiple magnetic resonance imaging modalities (multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging) provides a more accurate prediction of the risk presented by prostate cancer than current prediction methods. In this study, positive magnetic resonance imaging results approximately doubled the chances that a patient with favorable risk prostate cancer would be found to have adverse pathology when their prostate was removed. Thus, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging could help select patients with favorable risk cancer who may be good candidates for active surveillance, and help guide biopsy and surveillance strategies for such patients.

Project description:BackgroundTo investigate the role of Prostate Specific Antigen density (PSAD) in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance (AS) and to determine a cutoff PSAD in identifying adverse pathological outcomes.MethodsData from 287 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer were retrospectively reviewed. Six different AS protocols, the University of Toronto; Royal Marsden; John Hopkins; University of California San Francisco (UCSF); Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS), were applied to the cohort. Pre-operative demographics and pathological outcomes were analysed. Statistical analyses on the predictive factors of adverse pathological outcomes and significance of PSAD were performed. A cutoff PSAD with best balance between sensitivity and specificity in identifying adverse pathological outcome was determined.ResultsPSAD predicted adverse pathological outcomes better than Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) level alone. The PSAD was significantly lower (0.12-0.13 ng/dl/ml) in protocols including PSAD (the John Hopkins and PRIAS) compared with the other four protocols not including PSAD as a selection criteria (0.21-0.25 ng/dl/dl, P = 0.00). PSAD predicted adverse pathological outcomes in all protocols not incorporating PSAD as an inclusion criteria (P = 0.00-0.02). By the receiver operator characteristics curve analysis, it was found that a PSAD level of 0.19 ng/ml/ml had the best balance between sensitivity and specificity in predicting pathological adverse disease (Area under curve = 0.63, P = 0.004).ConclusionPSAD is necessary in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. It predicts adverse pathological outcomes in patients eligible for active surveillance better than PSA level alone. A PSAD cutoff at 0.19 ng/ml/ml has the best balance between sensitivity and specificity in predicting pathological adverse disease. We recommend using AS protocol incorporating PSAD as a selection criteria (in particular the PRIAS protocol with a cutoff PSAD at 0.2 ng/ml/ml) when recruiting prostate cancer patients for AS.

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.

Dataset Information

A modified Delphi study to develop a practical guide for selecting patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A modified Delphi study to develop a practical guide for selecting patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets