Search

Background: Active surveillance (AS) is an accepted means of managing low-risk prostate cancer. Because of the rarity of downstream events, data from existing AS cohorts cannot yet address how differences in surveillance intensity affect metastasis and mortality. This study projected the comparative benefits of different AS schedules in men diagnosed with prostate cancer who had Gleason score (GS) ≤6 disease and risk profiles similar to those in North American AS cohorts., Methods: Times of GS upgrading were simulated based on AS data from the University of Toronto, Johns Hopkins University, the University of California at San Francisco, and the Canary Pass Active Surveillance Cohort. Times to metastasis and prostate cancer death, informed by models from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 trial, were projected under biopsy surveillance schedules ranging from watchful waiting to annual biopsies. Outcomes included the risk of metastasis, the risk of death, remaining life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs., Results: Compared with watchful waiting, AS biopsies reduced the risk of prostate cancer metastasis and prostate cancer death at 20 years by 1.4% to 3.3% and 1.0% to 2.4%, respectively; and 5-year biopsies reduced the risk of metastasis and prostate cancer death by 1.0% to 2.4% and 0.6% to 1.6%, respectively. There was little difference between annual and 5-year biopsy schedules in terms of LYs (range of differences, 0.04-0.16 LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (range of differences, -0.02 to 0.09 quality-adjusted LYs)., Conclusions: Among men diagnosed with GS ≤6 prostate cancer, obtaining a biopsy every 3 or 4 years appears to be an acceptable alternative to more frequent biopsies. Reducing surveillance intensity for those who have a low risk of progression reduces the number of biopsies while preserving the benefit of more frequent schedules., (© 2019 American Cancer Society.)

PurposeActive surveillance (AS) for grade group (GG) 2 patients is not yet well defined. We sought to compare clinical outcomes of men with GG1 and GG2 prostate cancer undergoing AS in a large prospective North American cohort.Materials and methodsParticipants were prospectively enrolled in an AS study with protocol-directed followup at 10 centers in the U.S. and Canada. We evaluated time from diagnosis to biopsy grade reclassification and time to treatment. In men treated after initial surveillance, adverse pathology and recurrence were also analyzed.ResultsAt diagnosis, 154 (9%) had GG2 and 1,574 (91%) had GG1. Five-year reclassification rates were similar between GG2 and GG1 (30% vs 37%, p=0.11). However, more patients with GG2 were treated at 5 years (58% vs 34%, p

PurposeIn a large, prospective, multi-institutional active surveillance cohort we evaluated whether African American men are at higher risk for reclassification.Materials and methodsThe Canary PASS (Prostate Active Surveillance Study) is a protocol driven, active surveillance cohort with a prespecified prostate specific antigen and surveillance biopsy regimen. Men included in this study had Gleason Grade Group 1 or 2 disease at diagnosis and fewer than 5 years between diagnosis and enrollment, and had undergone 1 or more surveillance biopsies. The reclassification risk, defined as an increase in the Gleason score on subsequent biopsy, was compared between African American and Caucasian American men using Cox proportional hazards models. In the subset of men who underwent delayed prostatectomy the rate of adverse pathology findings, defined as pT3a or greater disease, or Gleason Grade Group 3 or greater, was compared in African American and Caucasian American men.ResultsOf the 1,315 men 89 (7%) were African American and 1,226 (93%) were Caucasian American. There was no difference in the treatment rate in African American and Caucasian American men. In multivariate models African American race was not associated with the risk of reclassification (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.78-1.72). Of the 441 men who underwent prostatectomy after a period of active surveillance the rate of adverse pathology was similar in those who were African American and Caucasian American (46% vs 47%, p=0.99).ConclusionsOf men on active surveillance who followed a standardized protocol of regular prostate specific antigen testing and biopsy those who were African American were not at increased risk for pathological reclassification while on active surveillance, or for adverse pathology findings at prostatectomy. Active surveillance appears to be an appropriate management strategy for African American men with favorable risk prostate cancer.

BackgroundFor men on active surveillance for prostate cancer, biomarkers may improve prediction of reclassification to higher grade or volume cancer. This study examined the association of urinary PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG (T2:ERG) with biopsy-based reclassification.MethodsUrine was collected at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months in the multi-institutional Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS), and PCA3 and T2:ERG levels were quantitated. Reclassification was an increase in Gleason score or ratio of biopsy cores with cancer to ≥34%. The association of biomarker scores, adjusted for common clinical variables, with short- and long-term reclassification was evaluated. Discriminatory capacity of models with clinical variables alone or with biomarkers was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and decision curve analysis (DCA).ResultsSeven hundred and eighty-two men contributed 2069 urine specimens. After adjusting for PSA, prostate size, and ratio of biopsy cores with cancer, PCA3 but not T2:ERG was associated with short-term reclassification at the first surveillance biopsy (OR = 1.3; 95% CI 1.0-1.7, p = 0.02). The addition of PCA3 to a model with clinical variables improved area under the curve from 0.743 to 0.753 and increased net benefit minimally. After adjusting for clinical variables, neither marker nor marker kinetics was associated with time to reclassification in subsequent biopsies.ConclusionsPCA3 but not T2:ERG was associated with cancer reclassification in the first surveillance biopsy but has negligible improvement over clinical variables alone in ROC or DCA analyses. Neither marker was associated with reclassification in subsequent biopsies.

BackgroundFor men on active surveillance for prostate cancer, utility of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics (PSAk) in predicting pathologic reclassification remains controversial.ObjectiveTo develop prediction methods for utilizing serial PSA and evaluate frequency of collection.Design, setting, and participantsData were collected from men enrolled in the multicenter Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study, for whom PSA data were measured and biopsies performed on prespecified schedules. We developed a PSAk parameter based on a linear mixed-effect model (LMEM) that accounted for serial PSA levels.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe association of diagnostic PSA and/or PSAk with time to reclassification (increase in cancer grade and/or volume) was evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.Results and limitationsA total of 851 men met the study criteria; 255 (30%) had a reclassification event within 5 yr. Median follow-up was 3.7 yr. After adjusting for prostate size, time since diagnosis, biopsy parameters, and diagnostic PSA, PSAk was a significant predictor of reclassification (hazard ratio for each 0.10 increase in PSAk=1.6 [95% confidence interval 1.2-2.1, p

BackgroundMany patients who are on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer will have surveillance prostate needle biopsies (PNBs) without any cancer evident.ObjectiveTo define the association between negative surveillance PNBs and risk of reclassification on AS.Design, setting, and participantsAll men were enrolled in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) between 2008 and 2016. Men were included if they had Gleason ≤3+4 prostate cancer and

BackgroundActive surveillance (AS) is increasingly accepted for managing low-risk prostate cancer, yet there is no consensus about implementation. This lack of consensus is due in part to uncertainty about risks for disease progression, which have not been systematically compared or integrated across AS studies with variable surveillance protocols and dropout to active treatment.ObjectiveTo compare risks for upgrading from a Gleason score (GS) of 6 or less to 7 or more across AS studies after accounting for differences in surveillance intervals and competing treatments and to evaluate tradeoffs of more versus less frequent biopsies.DesignJoint statistical model of longitudinal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and risks for biopsy upgrading.SettingJohns Hopkins University (JHU); Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS); University of California, San Francisco (UCSF); and University of Toronto (UT) AS studies.Patients2576 men aged 40 to 80 years with a GS between 2 and 6 and clinical stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer enrolled between 1995 and 2014.MeasurementsPSA levels and biopsy GSs.ResultsAfter variable surveillance intervals and competing treatments were accounted for, estimated risks for biopsy upgrading were similar in the PASS and UT studies but higher in UCSF and lower in JHU studies. All cohorts had a delay of 3 to 5 months in detecting upgrading with biennial biopsies starting after a first confirmatory biopsy versus annual biopsies.LimitationThe model does not account for possible misclassification of biopsy GS.ConclusionMen in different AS studies have different risks for biopsy upgrading after variable surveillance protocols and competing treatments are accounted for. Despite these differences, the consequences of more versus less frequent biopsies seem to be similar across cohorts. Biennial biopsies seem to be an acceptable alternative to annual biopsies.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute.

BackgroundDiagnosis of Gleason 6 prostate cancer can leave uncertainty about the presence of undetected aggressive disease.ObjectiveTo evaluate the utility of a four kallikrein (4K) panel in predicting the presence of high-grade cancer in men on active surveillance.Design, setting, and participantsPlasma collected before the first and subsequent surveillance biopsies was assessed for 718 men prospectively enrolled in the multi-institutional Canary PASS trial. Biopsy data were split 2:1 into training and test sets. We developed statistical models that included clinical information and either the 4Kpanel or serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA).Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe endpoint was reclassification to Gleason ≥7. We used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses and area under the curve (AUC) to assess discriminatory capacity, and decision curve analysis (DCA) to report clinical net benefit.Results and limitationsSignificant predictors for reclassification were 4Kpanel (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-1.81) or PSA (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.53-2.91), ≥20% cores positive (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.33-3.32), two or more prior negative biopsies (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.85), prostate volume (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.70), and body mass index (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.14). ROC curve analysis comparing 4K and base models indicated that the 4Kpanel improved accuracy for predicting reclassification (AUC 0.78 vs 0.74) at the first surveillance biopsy. Both models performed comparably for prediction of reclassification at subsequent biopsies (AUC 0.75 vs 0.76). In DCA, both models showed higher net benefit compared to biopsy-all and biopsy-none strategies. Limitations include the single cohort nature of the study and the small numbers; results should be validated in another cohort before clinical use.ConclusionsThe 4Kpanel provided incremental value over routine clinical information in predicting high-grade cancer in the first biopsy after diagnosis. The 4Kpanel did not add predictive value to the base model at subsequent surveillance biopsies.Patient summaryActive surveillance is a management strategy for many low-grade prostate cancers. Repeat biopsies monitor for previously undetected high-grade cancer. We show that a model with clinical variables, including a panel of four kallikreins, indicates the presence of high-grade cancer before a biopsy is performed.

PurposeDuring active surveillance for localized prostate cancer, the timing of the first surveillance biopsy varies. We analyzed the Canary PASS (Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study) to determine biopsy timing influence on rates of prostate cancer adverse reclassification at the first active surveillance biopsy.Materials and methodsOf 1,085 participants in PASS, 421 had fewer than 34% of cores involved with cancer and Gleason sum 6 or less, and thereafter underwent on-study active surveillance biopsy. Reclassification was defined as an increase in Gleason sum and/or 34% or more of cores with prostate cancer. First active surveillance biopsy reclassification rates were categorized as less than 8, 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months after diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression determined association between reclassification and first biopsy timing.ResultsOf 421 men, 89 (21.1%) experienced reclassification at the first active surveillance biopsy. Median time from prostate cancer diagnosis to first active surveillance biopsy was 11 months (IQR 7.8-13.8). Reclassification rates at less than 8, 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months were 24%, 19% and 22% (p = 0.65). On multivariable analysis, compared to men biopsied at less than 8 months the OR of reclassification at 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months were 0.88 (95% CI 0.5,1.6) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.5,1.9), respectively. Prostate specific antigen density 0.15 or greater (referent less than 0.15, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1, 4.1) and body mass index 35 kg/m2 or greater (referent less than 25 kg/m2, OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1,5.7) were associated with increased odds of reclassification.ConclusionsTiming of the first active surveillance biopsy was not associated with increased adverse reclassification but prostate specific antigen density and body mass index were. In low risk patients on active surveillance, it may be reasonable to perform the first active surveillance biopsy at a later time, reducing the overall cost and morbidity of active surveillance.

PurposeActive surveillance represents a strategy to address the overtreatment of prostate cancer, yet uncertainty regarding individual patient outcomes remains a concern. We evaluated outcomes in a prospective multicenter study of active surveillance.Materials and methodsWe studied 905 men in the prospective Canary PASS enrolled between 2008 and 2013. We collected clinical data at study entry and at prespecified intervals, and determined associations with adverse reclassification, defined as increased Gleason grade or greater cancer volume on followup biopsy. We also evaluated the relationships of clinical parameters with pathology findings in participants who underwent surgery after a period of active surveillance.ResultsAt a median followup of 28 months 24% of participants experienced adverse reclassification, of whom 53% underwent treatment while 31% continued on active surveillance. Overall 19% of participants received treatment, 68% with adverse reclassification, while 32% opted for treatment without disease reclassification. In multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling the percent of biopsy cores with cancer, body mass index and prostate specific antigen density were associated with adverse reclassification (p=0.01, 0.04, 0.04, respectively). Of 103 participants subsequently treated with radical prostatectomy 34% had adverse pathology, defined as primary pattern 4-5 or nonorgan confined disease, including 2 with positive lymph nodes, with no significant relationship between risk category at diagnosis and findings at surgery (p=0.76).ConclusionsMost men remain on active surveillance at 5 years without adverse reclassification or adverse pathology at surgery. However, clinical factors had only a modest association with disease reclassification, supporting the need for approaches that improve the prediction of this outcome.

BackgroundMen on active surveillance (AS) face repeated biopsies. Most biopsy specimens will not show disease progression or change management. Such biopsies do not contribute to patient management and are potentially morbid and costly.ObjectiveTo use a contemporary AS prospective trial to develop a tool to predict AS biopsy outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsBiopsy samples (median: 2; range: 2-9 per patient) from 859 men participating in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study and with Gleason 6 prostate cancer (median follow-up: 35.8 mo; range: 3.0-148.7 mo) were analyzed.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisLogistic regression was used to predict progression, defined as an increase in Gleason score from ≤6 to ≥7 or increase in percentage of cores positive for cancer from

Modifiable lifestyle factors, such as following a healthy dietary pattern may delay or prevent prostate cancer (PCa) progression. However, few studies have evaluated whether following specific dietary patterns after PCa diagnosis impacts risk of disease progression among men with localized PCa managed by active surveillance (AS). 564 men enrolled in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study, a protocol-driven AS study utilizing a pre-specified prostate-specific antigen monitoring and surveillance biopsy regimen, completed a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) at enrollment and had ≥ 1 surveillance biopsy during follow-up. FFQs were used to evaluate adherence to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (Healthy Eating index (HEI))-2015, alternative Mediterranean Diet (aMED), and Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) dietary patterns. Multivariable-adjusted hazards ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 237 men experienced an increase in Gleason score on subsequent biopsy (grade reclassification). Higher HEI-2015, aMED or DASH diet scores after diagnosis were not associated with significant reductions in the risk of grade reclassification during AS. However, these dietary patterns have well-established protective effects on chronic diseases and mortality and remain a prudent choice for men with prostate cancer managed by AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We assessed whether Prostate Health Index results improve prediction of grade reclassification for men on active surveillance. Methods and Materials: We identified men in Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study with Grade Group 1 cancer. Outcome was grade reclassification to Grade Group 2+ cancer. We considered decision rules to maximize specificity with sensitivity set at 95%. We derived rules based on clinical data (R1) vs clinical data+Prostate Health Index (R3). We considered an “or”-logic rule combining clinical score and Prostate Health Index (R4), and a “2-step” rule using clinical data followed by risk stratification based on Prostate Health Index (R2). Rules were applied to a validation set, where values of R2-R4 vs R1 for specificity and sensitivity were evaluated. Results: We included 1,532 biopsies (n = 610 discovery; n = 922 validation) among 1,142 men. Grade reclassification was seen in 27% of biopsies (23% discovery, 29% validation). Among the discovery set, at 95% sensitivity, R2 yielded highest specificity at 27% vs 17% for R1. In the validation set, R3 had best performance vs R1 with Δsensitivity = −4% and Δspecificity = +6%. There was slight improvement for R3 vs R1 for confirmatory biopsy (AUC 0.745 vs R1 0.724, ΔAUC 0.021, 95% CI 0.002-0.041) but not for subsequent biopsies (ΔAUC −0.012, 95% CI −0.031-0.006). R3 did not have better discrimination vs R1 among the biopsy cohort overall (ΔAUC 0.007, 95% CI −0.007-0.020). Conclusions: Among active surveillance patients, using Prostate Health Index with clinical data modestly improved prediction of grade reclassification on confirmatory biopsy and did not improve prediction on subsequent biopsies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose During active surveillance for localized prostate cancer, the timing of the first surveillance biopsy varies. We analyzed the Canary PASS (Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study) to determine biopsy timing influence on rates of prostate cancer adverse reclassification at the first active surveillance biopsy. Materials and Methods Of 1,085 participants in PASS, 421 had fewer than 34% of cores involved with cancer and Gleason sum 6 or less, and thereafter underwent on-study active surveillance biopsy. Reclassification was defined as an increase in Gleason sum and/or 34% or more of cores with prostate cancer. First active surveillance biopsy reclassification rates were categorized as less than 8, 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months after diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression determined association between reclassification and first biopsy timing. Results Of 421 men, 89 (21.1%) experienced reclassification at the first active surveillance biopsy. Median time from prostate cancer diagnosis to first active surveillance biopsy was 11 months (IQR 7.8–13.8). Reclassification rates at less than 8, 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months were 24%, 19% and 22% (p = 0.65). On multivariable analysis, compared to men biopsied at less than 8 months the OR of reclassification at 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months were 0.88 (95% CI 0.5,1.6) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.5,1.9), respectively. Prostate specific antigen density 0.15 or greater (referent less than 0.15, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1, 4.1) and body mass index 35 kg/m 2 or greater (referent less than 25 kg/m 2 , OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1,5.7) were associated with increased odds of reclassification. Conclusions Timing of the first active surveillance biopsy was not associated with increased adverse reclassification but prostate specific antigen density and body mass index were. In low risk patients on active surveillance, it may be reasonable to perform the first active surveillance biopsy at a later time, reducing the overall cost and morbidity of active surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We evaluated the reproducibility of Gleason grading as relevant to the clinical treatment of men on active surveillance. Materials and Methods: Three sets of digital images of prostatic adenocarcinoma in biopsies were reviewed and assigned Gleason scores by a total of 11 pathologists from 7 institutions. Interobserver and intra-observer reproducibility were assessed for assignment of the highest Gleason pattern (3 vs 4 or higher). We also identified 97 consecutive patients on active surveillance. Prostate biopsy glass slides from 82 of the patients were available for re-review and the frequency of carcinoma requiring the distinction of tangentially sectioned Gleason pattern 3 from 4 was determined. Results: Interobserver reproducibility for classic Gleason patterns was substantial (Light''s κ 0.76). Interobserver reproducibility for the histological distinction of tangentially sectioned Gleason pattern 3 from Gleason pattern 4 was only fair (Light''s κ 0.27). Intra-observer reproducibility ranged from 65% to 100% (mean 81.5%). Of the 82 patients on active surveillance 61 had carcinoma and 15 (24.5%) had a set of biopsies with at least 1 focus in which the distinction between tangentially sectioned Gleason pattern 3 and poorly formed pattern 4 glands had to be considered. Conclusions: The reproducibility of grading classic Gleason patterns is high. However, variability in grading occurred when distinguishing between tangentially sectioned pattern 3 glands and the poorly formed gland subset of pattern 4. Developing universally accepted histological and/or molecular criteria to distinguish these patterns and subsequently characterizing their natural history would be useful when treating patients on active surveillance. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]