Dataset Information

Comparison of Characteristics, Follow-up and Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer According to Ethnicity in the GAP3 Global Consortium Database.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Studies of active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) have focussed predominantly on Caucasian populations. Little is known about the experience of Asian men, while suitability for men of African descent has been questioned.

Objective

To compare baseline characteristics, follow-up, and outcomes for men on AS for PCa, according to ethnicity.

Design setting and participants

The study cohort included 13 centres from the GAP3 consortium that record ethnicity (categorised broadly as Caucasian/white, African/Afro-Caribbean/black, Asian, mixed/other, and unknown). Men with biopsy grade group >2, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20 ng/ml, T stage ≥cT3, or age >80 yr were excluded.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Clinical characteristics, follow-up schedules, outcome status, and reasons for discontinuation were compared across ethnic groups. Risk of upgrading, potential disease progression (grade group ≥3 or T stage ≥3), suspicious indications (any upgrading, number of positive cores >3, T stage ≥cT3, PSA >20 ng/ml, or PSA density >0.2 ng/ml/cc²), and conversion to treatment were assessed using mixed-effect regression models.

Results and limitations

The eligible cohort (n = 9158) comprised 83% Caucasian men, 6% men of African descent, 5% Asian men, 2% men of mixed/other ethnicity, and 4% men of unknown ethnicity. Risks of suspicious indicators (hazard ratio = 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.45), upgrading (odds ratio [OR] = 1.40; 95% CI 1.14-1.71), and potential progression (OR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.06-2.01) were higher among African/black than among Caucasian/white men. Risk of transitioning to treatment did not differ by ethnicity. More Asian than Caucasian men converted without progression (42% vs 26%, p < 0.001). Heterogeneity in surveillance protocols and racial makeup limit interpretation.

Conclusions

This multinational study found differences in the risk of disease progression and transitioning to treatment without signs of progression between ethnic groups. Further research is required to determine whether differences are due to biology, sociocultural factors, and/or clinical practice.

Patient summary

This international study compared prostate cancer active surveillance outcomes by ethnicity. Risks of upgrading and disease progression were higher among African than among Caucasian men. Transitioning to treatment without progression was highest among Asian men. Understanding of these differences requires further investigation.

SUBMITTER: Beckmann K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8655390 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe inclusion criterion for active surveillance (AS) is low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The predictive value of the presence of a suspicious lesion at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the time of inclusion is insufficiently known.ObjectiveTo evaluate the percentage of patients needing active treatment stratified by the presence or absence of a suspicious lesion at baseline MRI.Design setting and participantsA retrospective analysis of the data from the multicentric AS GAP3 Consortium database was conducted. The inclusion criteria were men with grade group (GG) 1 or GG 2 prostate cancer combined with prostate-specific antigen <20 ng/ml. We selected a subgroup of patients who had MRI at baseline and for whom MRI results and targeted biopsies were used for AS eligibility. Suspicious MRI was defined as an MRI lesion with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)/Likert ≥3 and for which targeted biopsies did not exclude the patient for AS.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe primary outcome was treatment free survival (FS). The secondary outcomes were histological GG progression FS and continuation of AS (discontinuation FS).Results and limitationsThe study cohort included 2119 patients (1035 men with nonsuspicious MRI and 1084 with suspicious MRI) with a median follow-up of 23 (12-43) mo. For the whole cohort, 3-yr treatment FS was 71% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 69-74). For nonsuspicious MRI and suspicious MRI groups, 3-yr treatment FS rates were, respectively, 80% (95% CI: 77-83) and 63% (95% CI: 59-66). Active treatment (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.0, p < 0.001), grade progression (HR = 1.9, p < 0.001), and discontinuation of AS (HR = 1.7, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the suspicious MRI group than in the nonsuspicious MRI group.ConclusionsThe risks of switching to treatment, histological progression, and AS discontinuation are higher in cases of suspicious MRI at inclusion.Patient summaryAmong men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer who choose active surveillance, those with suspicious magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the time of inclusion in active surveillance are more likely to show switch to treatment than men with nonsuspicious MRI.

Project description:BackgroundActive surveillance (AS) is the preferred option for initial management for low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Although many AS protocols exist, there is little evidence to support one over another.ObjectiveTo assess whether there is difference in overall (OS), prostate cancer-specific (CSS), metastasis-free (MFS), or treatment-free (TFS) survival between a strict (Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance [PRIAS]) and a loose (European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ERSPC]) AS protocol.Design setting and participantsThis study included two cohorts of men (n = 518) with low-risk, localized, Gleason score ≤7 PC. The ERSPC cohort included 241 men followed for 9.5 yr (median) with a non-protocol-based follow-up. The PRIAS cohort included 277 men followed for 5 yr (median) with a strict protocol.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisOS, CSS, MFS, and TFS were compared by the Kaplan-Meier method, competing risk analysis, and Cox proportional hazard regression.Results and limitationsAs expected, due to the difference in median follow-up time between the cohorts, a difference in the absolute number of events was seen. However, no difference in any of the survival outcomes was evident in the Kaplan-Meier or competing risks analysis. Furthermore, in Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, cohort (ERSPC vs PRIAS) was not associated with any of the outcomes. Results are limited by the retrospective study design, limited statistical power, and inability to match the cohorts for predictive factors.ConclusionsThere was no difference in survival outcomes between a non-protocol-based follow-up and a protocol-based contemporary AS follow-up of patients with low-risk PC. However, a longer follow-up is needed.Patient summaryWe compared survival outcomes of two cohorts of patients with low-risk prostate cancer: a strict and a loose follow-up protocol. We found no differences in survival measures between the cohorts.