Stricter Active Surveillance Criteria for Prostate Cancer do Not Result in Significantly Better Outcomes: A Comparison of Contemporary Protocols
- PMID: 27350077
- DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.083
Stricter Active Surveillance Criteria for Prostate Cancer do Not Result in Significantly Better Outcomes: A Comparison of Contemporary Protocols
Abstract
Purpose: We reviewed various existing active surveillance criteria and determined the competing trade-offs of the stricter vs more inclusive active surveillance criteria.
Materials and methods: Men enrolled in an active surveillance program at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre between 1998 and 2014 were identified through a prospectively maintained database. All patients were assessed for entry eligibility into the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance, Johns Hopkins, University of Miami, University of California San Francisco, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, University of Toronto-Sunnybrook and Royal Marsden protocols. The 2-sided t-test, ANOVA, Wilcoxon rank sum or chi-square tests were used for comparison as appropriate.
Results: Of the 1,365 men identified 1,085 met the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre inclusion criteria. When the Johns Hopkins, Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance and University of Miami criteria were applied 15.2%, 11.5% and 11.3% of these patients were excluded from active surveillance, respectively. No significant differences were noted between men who met the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre criteria and those who were excluded based on more stringent criteria when grade or volume reclassification was compared. No significant differences in prostate specific antigen velocity or the number of patients who proceeded to seek treatment were noted (p >0.1). Rates of biochemical recurrence among patients who chose to undergo radical prostatectomy after initial active surveillance were not different between men who met the more inclusive vs more exclusive active surveillance protocols.
Conclusions: More selective criteria do not significantly improve short-term outcomes when considering the relative risk of grade reclassification or biochemical failure after treatment. In an era of increased awareness regarding the over diagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer, we believe that stricter entry criteria should be reconsidered.
Keywords: eligibility determination; prostatic neoplasms; watchful waiting.
Copyright © 2016 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Who Should Consider Active Surveillance?J Urol. 2016 Dec;196(6):1604-1605. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.068. Epub 2016 Sep 15. J Urol. 2016. PMID: 27639609 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of pathological outcomes of active surveillance candidates who underwent radical prostatectomy using contemporary protocols at a high-volume Korean center.Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2012 Nov;42(11):1079-85. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hys147. Epub 2012 Sep 17. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2012. PMID: 22988037
-
Eligibility for active surveillance and pathological outcomes for men undergoing radical prostatectomy in a large, community based cohort.J Urol. 2010 Jan;183(1):138-43. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.152. J Urol. 2010. PMID: 19913808
-
Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols.Eur Urol. 2012 Sep;62(3):462-8. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.011. Epub 2012 Mar 17. Eur Urol. 2012. PMID: 22445138
-
Active surveillance for prostate cancer: can we modernize contemporary protocols to improve patient selection and outcomes in the focal therapy era?Curr Opin Urol. 2015 May;25(3):185-90. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000168. Curr Opin Urol. 2015. PMID: 25768694 Review.
-
Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention for favorable risk prostate cancer: clinical experience and a 'number needed to treat' analysis.Can J Urol. 2006 Feb;13 Suppl 1:48-55. Can J Urol. 2006. PMID: 16526983 Review.
Cited by
-
A novel predictor of clinical progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer.Can Urol Assoc J. 2019 Aug;13(8):250-255. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.6122. Epub 2019 Aug 31. Can Urol Assoc J. 2019. PMID: 31496491 Free PMC article.
-
Utility of digital rectal examination in a population with prostate cancer treated with active surveillance.Can Urol Assoc J. 2020 Sep;14(9):E453-E457. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.6341. Can Urol Assoc J. 2020. PMID: 32223879 Free PMC article.
-
Active surveillance review: contemporary selection criteria, follow-up, compliance and outcomes.Transl Androl Urol. 2018 Apr;7(2):243-255. doi: 10.21037/tau.2018.03.02. Transl Androl Urol. 2018. PMID: 29732283 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Best of the 2015 AUA Annual Meeting: Highlights From the 2015 American Urological Association Annual Meeting, May 15-19, 2015, New Orleans, LA.Rev Urol. 2015;17(3):179-89. Rev Urol. 2015. PMID: 26543434 Free PMC article. Review. No abstract available.
-
Biopsy Core Features are Poor Predictors of Adverse Pathology in Men with Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer.J Urol. 2018 Apr;199(4):961-968. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.010. Epub 2017 Oct 10. J Urol. 2018. PMID: 29030317 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous