Termination rates and histological reclassification of active surveillance patients with low- and early intermediate-risk prostate cancer: results of the PREFERE trial.
Active surveillance
Clinical trial
Prostate cancer
Reclassification
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
25
11
2019
accepted:
02
03
2020
pubmed:
20
3
2020
medline:
6
8
2021
entrez:
20
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Active surveillance (AS) strategies for patients with low- and early intermediate-risk prostate cancer are still not consistently defined. Within a controlled randomized trial, active surveillance was compared to other treatment options for patients with prostate cancer. Aim of this analysis was to report on termination rates of patients treated with AS including different grade groups. A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy, active surveillance, external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy was performed from 2013 to 2016 and included 345 patients with low- and early intermediate-risk prostate cancer (ISUP grade groups 1 and 2). The trial was prematurely stopped due to slow accrual. A total of 130 patients were treated with active surveillance. Among them, 42 patients were diagnosed with intermediate-risk PCA. Reference pathology and AS quality control were performed throughout. After a median follow-up time of 18.8 months, 73 out of the 130 patients (56%) terminated active surveillance. Of these, 56 (77%) patients were histologically reclassified at the time of rebiopsy, including 35% and 60% of the grade group 1 and 2 patients, respectively. No patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at the time of reclassification had radical prostatectomy specimens ≥ grade group 3. In this prospectively analyzed subcohort of patients with AS and conventional staging within a randomized trial, the 2-year histological reclassification rates were higher than those previously reported. Active surveillance may not be based on conventional staging alone, and patients with grade group 2 cancers may be recommended for active surveillance in carefully controlled trials only.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32189088
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03154-7
pii: 10.1007/s00345-020-03154-7
pmc: PMC7858200
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
65-72Références
Robert Koch Institute, Germany. www.rki.de . Assessed 23 Nov 2019
Klotz L (2019) Contemporary approach to active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer. Asian J Urol 6:146–152
doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.12.003
Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE et al (2012) Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with gleason score (GS)_6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes? Am J Surg Pathol 36:1346–1352
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182556dcd
Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC et al (2011) Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 185:869–875
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.10.057
Inoue LY, Trock BJ, Partin AW et al (2014) Modeling grade progression in an active surveillance study. Stat Med 33:930–939
doi: 10.1002/sim.6003
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. NEJM 375:1415–1424
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H et al (2014) Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 370:932–942
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1311593
Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF et al (2011) Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:228–234
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.4252
Bul M, van den Bergh RCN, Zhu X et al (2012) Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 110:1672–1677
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11434.x
Ohlmann CH, Stöckle M, Albers P et al (2016) PREFERE—study on the rise. Urologe A 55:313–317
doi: 10.1007/s00120-016-0047-z
Tokas T, Grabski B, Paul U et al (2018) A 12-year follow-up of ANNA/C-TRUS image-targeted biopsies in patients suspicious for prostate cancer. World J Urol 36:699–704
doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2160-z
Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H et al (2018) Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in prostate cancer—29-year follow-up. NEJM 379:2319–2329
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1807801
Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:272–277
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192
Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R et al (2013) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 63:597–603
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005
Neal DE, Metcalfe C, Donovan JL et al (2019) Ten-year mortality, disease progression, and treatment-related side effects in men with localised prostate cancer from the ProtecT randomised controlled trial according to treatment received. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.030 [Epub ahead of print]
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.030
pubmed: 31771797
pmcid: 6695475
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. NEJM 378:1767–1777
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
EAU guideline for prostate cancer. www.uroweb.org . Assessed 23 Nov 2019
Fam MM, Yabes JG, Macleod LC et al (2019) Increasing utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer surveillance. Urology 130:99–105
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.02.037