https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.4.385
Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in a middle eastern tertiary care center
Submitted: May 14, 2021
Accepted: July 19, 2021
Published: December 20, 2021
Accepted: July 19, 2021
Abstract Views: 1134
PDF: 396
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
Background: The aim of our study was to evaluate the outcome of active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer for a cohort of patients at our institution.
Methods: A total of 43 patients with low risk prostate cancer were enrolled in an active surveillance pilot program at our institution between 2008 and 2018. Follow up protocols included: periodic prostate specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination (DRE), multiparametric MRI, and prostate biopsy at one year. Pertinent parameters were collected, and descriptive statistics were reported along with a subset analysis of patients that dropped out of the protocol to receive active treatment for disease progression.
Results: Out of 43 eligible patients, 46.5% had a significant rise in follow up PSA. DRE was initially suspicious in 27.9% of patients, and none had any change in DRE on follow up. Initially, prostate MRIs showed PIRADS 3, 4, and 5 in 14%, 37.2%, and 11.6% respectively, while 23.2% had a negative initial MRI. 14% did not have an MRI. Upon follow up, 18.6% of patients had progression on MRI. Initial biopsies revealed that 86% were classified as WHO group 1, while 14% as WHO group 2. With regards to the follow up biopsies, 11.6% were upgraded. 20.9% of our patients had active treatment; 44.4% due to upgraded biopsy results, 22.2% due to PSA progression, 22.2% due to strong patient preference, and 11.1% due to radiologic progression.
Conclusions: For selected men with low risk prostate cancer, AS is a reasonable alternative. The decision for active treatment should be tailored upon changes in PSA, DRE, MRI, and biopsy results.
Briganti A, Fossati N, Catto JWF, et al. Active surveillance for lowrisk prostate cancer: the European Association of Urology position in 2018. Eur Urol. 2018; 74:357-68.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.008
Popiolek M, Rider JR, Andren O, et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer: a final report from three decades of follow-up. Eur Urol. 2013; 63:428-35.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.10.002
Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. Jama. 2005;293:2095-101.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.17.2095
Johansson E, Steineck G, Holmberg L, et al. Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomised trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2011; 12:891-9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70162-0
Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018; 319:1901-13.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.3710
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. New Engl J Med 2016; 375:1415-24.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
Klotz L. Active surveillance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2020; 125:346-54.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14935
Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33:272-7.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192
Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, et al. NCCN Guidelines insights: prostate cancer early detection, Version 2.2016. JNCCN. 2016; 14:509-19.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2016.0060
Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, et al. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2015; 193:807-11.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.094
Garisto JD, Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: how to do it ight. Oncology (Williston Park) 2017; 31:333-40.
Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, Schroder FH. The role of the digital rectal examination in subsequent screening visits in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam. Eur Urol. 2008; 54:581-8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.03.104
Bokhorst LP, Lepisto I, Kakehi Y, et al. Complications after prostate biopsies in men on active surveillance and its effects on receiving further biopsies in the Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study. BJU Int. 2016; 118:366-71.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13410
Ploussard G, Salomon L, Xylinas E, et al. Pathological findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance--does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria? J Urol. 2010; 183:539-44.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.009
Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, et al. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008; 180:1964-7.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.07.051
De Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR 2014;202:343-51.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11046
Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, et al. Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int. 2016; 117:80-6.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12892
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22:746-57.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
Dianat SS, Carter HB, Pienta KJ, et al. Magnetic resonance-invisible versus magnetic resonance-visible prostate cancer in active surveillance: a preliminary report on disease outcomes. Urology. 2015;85:147-53.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.085
Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015; 67:627-36.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.050
Lin DW, Newcomb LF, Brown EC, et al. Urinary TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 in an active surveillance cohort: results from a baseline analysis in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19:2442-50.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-3283
Lin DW, Newcomb LF, Brown MD, et al. Evaluating the four kallikrein panel of the 4Kscore for prediction of high-grade prostate cancer in men in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. Eur Urol. 2017; 72:448-54.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.11.017
Klein EA, Haddad Z, Yousefi K, et al. Decipher genomic classifier measured on prostate biopsy predicts metastasis risk. Urology. 2016;90:148-52.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.01.012
Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol. 2014;66:550-60.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.05.004
Shore ND, Kella N, Moran B, et al. Impact of the cell cycle progression test on physician and patient treatment selection for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016; 195:612-8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.09.072
Wang SY, Cowan JE, Cary KC, et al. Limited ability of existing nomograms to predict outcomes in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2014; 114:E18-e24.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12554
Castro E, Goh C, Olmos D, et al. Germline BRCA mutations are associated with higher risk of nodal involvement, distant metastasis, and poor survival outcomes in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1748-57.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.43.1882
El Sebaaly R, Mansour M, Labban M, et al. Survey on the practice of active surveillance for prostate cancer from the Middle East. Prostate Int. 2020; 8:41-8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2019.11.001
Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, et al. Intermediate and longerterm outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33:3379-85.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764
Newcomb LF, Thompson IM, Jr., Boyer HD, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, Multi-Institutional Canary PASS Cohort. J Urol. 2016;195:313-20.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.087
How to Cite
Hout, M., Merhe, A., Heidar, N. A., El-Asmar, J. M., Wazzan, W., Bachir, B., Jaafar, R., El-Hajj, A., & Bulbul, M. (2021). Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in a middle eastern tertiary care center. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 93(4), 385–388. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.4.385
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.