Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Nov;124(5):758-767.
doi: 10.1111/bju.14800. Epub 2019 Jun 2.

Using prognosis to guide inclusion criteria, define standardised endpoints and stratify follow-up in active surveillance for prostate cancer

Affiliations

Using prognosis to guide inclusion criteria, define standardised endpoints and stratify follow-up in active surveillance for prostate cancer

Vincent J Gnanapragasam et al. BJU Int. 2019 Nov.

Abstract

Objectives: To test whether using disease prognosis can inform a rational approach to active surveillance (AS) for early prostate cancer.

Patients and methods: We previously developed the Cambridge Prognostics Groups (CPG) classification, a five-tiered model that uses prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Grade Group and Stage to predict cancer survival outcomes. We applied the CPG model to a UK and a Swedish prostate cancer cohort to test differences in prostate cancer mortality (PCM) in men managed conservatively or by upfront treatment in CPG2 and 3 (which subdivides the intermediate-risk classification) vs CPG1 (low-risk). We then applied the CPG model to a contemporary UK AS cohort, which was optimally characterised at baseline for disease burden, to identify predictors of true prognostic progression. Results were re-tested in an external AS cohort from Spain.

Results: In a UK cohort (n = 3659) the 10-year PCM was 2.3% in CPG1, 1.5%/3.5% in treated/untreated CPG2, and 1.9%/8.6% in treated/untreated CPG3. In the Swedish cohort (n = 27 942) the10-year PCM was 1.0% in CPG1, 2.2%/2.7% in treated/untreated CPG2, and 6.1%/12.5% in treated/untreated CPG3. We then tested using progression to CPG3 as a hard endpoint in a modern AS cohort (n = 133). During follow-up (median 3.5 years) only 6% (eight of 133) progressed to CPG3. Predictors of progression were a PSA density ≥0.15 ng/mL/mL and CPG2 at diagnosis. Progression occurred in 1%, 8% and 21% of men with neither factor, only one, or both, respectively. In an independent Spanish AS cohort (n = 143) the corresponding rates were 3%, 10% and 14%, respectively.

Conclusion: Using disease prognosis allows a rational approach to inclusion criteria, discontinuation triggers and risk-stratified management in AS.

Keywords: #PCSM; #ProstateCancer; Active surveillance; Cambridge Prognostic Groups; Intermediate-risk; Localised prostate cancer; Low-risk; Stratified follow-up.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Matulewicz RS, Weiner AB, Schaeffer EM. Active surveillance for prostate cancer. JAMA 2017; 318: 2152. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.17222
    1. Ritch CR, Graves AJ, Keegan KA et al. Increasing use of observation among men at low risk for prostate cancer mortality. J Urol 2015; 193: 801-6
    1. Bruinsma SM, Bangma CH, Carroll PR et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines. Nat Rev Urol 2016; 13: 151-67
    1. Rubio-Briones J, Borque-Fernando A, Esteban-Escaño LM et al. Variability in the multicentre National Registry in Active Surveillance; a questionnaire for urologists. Actas Urol Esp 2018; 42: 442-9
    1. Philippou Y, Raja H, Gnanapragasam VJ. Active surveillance of prostate cancer: a questionnaire survey of urologists, clinical oncologists and urology nurse specialists across three cancer networks in the United Kingdom. BMC Urol 2015; 15: 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-015-0049-y

Publication types