Search

Objective: To determine the risk of disease progression and conversion to active treatment following a negative biopsy while on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa)., Patients and Methods: Men on an AS programme at a single tertiary hospital (London, UK) between 2003 and 2018 with confirmed low-intermediate-risk PCa, Gleason Grade Group <3, clinical stage 30% positive cores, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Likert score >3/T3 or PSA level of >20 ng/mL. Conversion to treatment included radical or hormonal treatment., Results: Among the 460 eligible patients, 23% had negative follow-up biopsy findings. The median follow-up was 62 months, with one to two repeat biopsies and two MRIs per patient during that period. Negative biopsy findings at first repeat biopsy were associated with decreased risk of converting to active treatment (hazard ration [HR] 0.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.37; P < 0.001), suspicion of disease progression (HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.94; P = 0.029), and upgrading (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99; P = 0.047). Data are limited by fewer men with multiple follow-up biopsies., Conclusion: A negative biopsy finding at the first scheduled follow-up biopsy among men on AS for PCa was strongly associated with decreased risk of subsequent upgrading, clinical or radiological suspicion of disease progression, and conversion to active treatment. A less intense surveillance protocol should be considered for this cohort of patients., (© 2020 The Authors BJU International © 2020 BJU International.)

Purpose: We sought to identify and validate known predictors of disease reclassification at 1 or 4 years to support risk-based selection of patients suitable for active surveillance., Materials and Methods: An individual participant data meta-analysis using data from 25 established cohorts within the Movember Foundations GAP3 Consortium. In total 5,530 men were included. Disease reclassification was defined as any increase in Gleason grade group at biopsy at 1 and 4 years. Associations were estimated using random effect logistic regression models. The discriminative ability of combinations of predictors was assessed in an internal-external validation procedure using the AUC curve., Results: Among the 5,570 men evaluated at 1 year, we found 815 reclassifications to higher Gleason grade group at biopsy (pooled reclassification rate 13%, range 0% to 31%). Important predictors were age, prostate specific antigen, prostate volume, T-stage and number of biopsy cores with prostate cancer. Among the 1,515 men evaluated at 4 years, we found 205 reclassifications (pooled reclassification rates 14%, range 3% to 40%), with similar predictors. The average areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve at internal-external validation were 0.68 and 0.61 for 1-year and 4-year reclassification, respectively., Conclusions: Disease reclassification occurs typically in 13% to 14% of biopsies at 1 and 4 years after the start of active surveillance with substantial between-study heterogeneity. Current guidelines might be extended by considering prostate volume to improve individualized selection for active surveillance. Additional predictors are needed to improve patient selection for active surveillance.

Background: Experiences of African/Afro-Caribbean men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) in the United Kingdom (UK) are not well documented. We compared follow-up appointments, adherence, and clinical outcomes among African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS at a high-volume UK hospital with other ethnicities., Methods: Men with confirmed low-intermediate risk Pca who attended the AS clinic (2005-2016) and had undergone ≥1 follow-up biopsy (n = 458) were included. Non-adherence (defined as >20% missed appointments), suspicion of disease progression (any upgrading, >30% positive cores, cT-stage > 3, PIRADS > 3), any upgrading from diagnostic biopsy and conversion to active treatment (prostatectomy, radiotherapy or hormone therapy) according to ethnicity (African/Afro-Caribbean versus other ethnicities) were assessed using multivariable regression analysis., Results: Twenty-three percent of eligible men were recorded as African/Afro-Caribbean, while the remainder were predominantly Caucasian. African/Afro-Caribbean men had slightly lower PSA at diagnosis (median 5.0 vs. 6.0 ng/mL) and more positive cores at diagnosis (median 2 vs. 1). They had a substantially higher rate of non-attendance at scheduled follow-up visits (24% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). Adjusted analyses suggest African/Afro-Caribbean men may be at increased risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.91, P = 0.054) and upgrading (HR: 1.29; 95% CI 0.87-1.92, P = 0.305), though neither reached statistical significance. No difference in risk of conversion to treatment was observed between ethnic groups (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.64-1.47, P = 0.873)., Conclusions: African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS for PCa in the UK are less likely to adhere to scheduled appointments, suggesting a more tailored service addressing their specific needs may be required. While African/Afro-Caribbean men were no more likely to convert to treatment than Caucasian/other men, findings of a potentially higher risk of disease progression signal the need for careful selection and monitoring of African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS. Larger prospective, multicentre studies with longer follow-up are required to provide more definitive conclusions.

Background: The routine clinical use of serum prostatic specific antigen (PSA) testing has allowed earlier detection of low-grade prostate cancer (PCa) with more favourable characteristics, leading to increased acceptance of management by active surveillance (AS). AS aims to avoid over treatment in men with low and intermediate-risk PCa and multiple governing bodies have described several AS protocols. This study provides a descriptive profile of the Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) AS cohort as a platform for future research in AS pathways in PCa., Methods: Demographic and baseline characteristics were retrospectively collected in a database for patients at the GSTT AS clinic with prospective collection of follow-up data from 2012. Seven hundred eighty-eight men being monitored at GSTT with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk PCa, at least 1 follow-up appointment and diagnostic characteristics consistent with AS criteria were included in the profile. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariable Cox proportion hazards regression models were used to characterize the cohort., Discussion: A relatively large proportion of the cohort includes men of African/Afro-Caribbean descent (22%). More frequent use of magnetic resonance imaging and trans-perineal biopsies at diagnosis was observed among patients diagnosed after 2012. Those who underwent trans-rectal ultrasound diagnostic biopsy received their first surveillance biopsy 20 months earlier than those who underwent trans-perineal diagnostic biopsy. At 3 years, 76.1% men remained treatment free. Predictors of treatment progression included Gleason score 3 + 4 (Hazard ratio (HR): 2.41, 95% Confidence interval (CI): 1.79-3.26) and more than 2 positive cores taken at biopsy (HR: 2.65, CI: 1.94-3.62). A decreased risk of progressing to treatment was seen among men diagnosed after 2012 (HR: 0.72, CI: 0.53-0.98)., Conclusion: An organised biopsy surveillance approach, via two different AS pathways according to the patient's diagnostic method, can be seen within the GSTT cohort. Risk of patients progressing to treatment has decreased in the period since 2012 compared with the prior period with more than half of the cohort remaining treatment free at 5 years, highlighting that the fundamental aims of AS at GSTT are being met. Thus, this cohort is a good resource to investigate the AS treatment pathway.

Introduction: Overtreatment of localised prostate cancer is substantial despite increased use of active surveillance. No randomised trials help define how to monitor patients or when to initiate treatment with curative intent., Methods and Analysis: A randomised, multicentre, intervention trial designed to evaluate the safety of an MRI-based active surveillance protocol, with standardised triggers for repeated biopsies and radical treatment. The aim is to reduce overtreatment of prostate cancer. 2000 men will be randomly allocated to either surveillance according to current practice or to standardised triggers at centres in Sweden, Norway, Finland and the UK. Men diagnosed in the past 12 months with prostate cancer, ≤T2a, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <15 ng/mL, PSA density ≤0.2 ng/mL/cc, any International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1 are eligible. Men with ISUP grade 2 in <30% of cores on systematic biopsy and <10 mm cancer in one core on systematic or targeted biopsy are also eligible. Men diagnosed on systematic biopsy should have an MRI and targeted biopsies against Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System V.2 3-5 lesions before inclusion. Identical follow-up in the two study arms: biannual PSA testing, yearly clinical examination and MRI every second year. In the experimental arm, standardised triggers based on MRI and PSA density elicit repeated biopsies. MRI and histopathological progression trigger radical treatment. Primary outcome measure is progression-free survival. Secondary outcome measures are cumulative incidence of metastatic disease, treatments with curative intent, pT3-4 at radical prostatectomy, switch to watchful waiting, prostate cancer mortality and quality of life. Inclusion started in October 2016 and in October 2018; 275 patients have been enrolled., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained in each participating country. Results for the primary and secondary outcome measures will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT02914873., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patient-related factors such as concern about cancer are believed to influence both men's decisions to undergo prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing and to have definitive treatment if diagnosed with low risk prostate cancer (PCa). The potential link between screening frequency and choice of active surveillance (AS) for low risk disease has not been studied previously. Our aim was to investigate whether there is any association between PCa screening frequency or previous negative prostate biopsy and uptake of AS among men with low risk PCa., Methods: This register-based study included all men ≤75 years from Stockholm who were diagnosed with low risk PCa from 2008 to 2014 (n = 4336). Pre-diagnostic PSA testing and biopsy histories were obtained from the Stockholm PSA and Biopsy Register, a population-based register for the Stockholm country. The association between previous screening/biopsy history and AS uptake (based on primary treatment recorded in the National Prostate Cancer Register) was examined using multivariable logistic regression., Results: Forty seven percent of men with low risk PCa underwent AS. Uptake was associated with older age, very low risk disease, more recent diagnosis and absence of family history. None of the screening/biopsy measures (testing frequency, mean interval, PSA velocity, highest pre-diagnostic PSA or prior negative biopsy) were associated with uptake of AS among men with low risk PCa. Generalisability to settings with different policies and practices may be limited., Conclusion: We found no evidence that screening frequency and negative biopsy influence uptake of AS among Swedish men with low risk PCa. Further research is required to determine factors that still present barriers for men taking up AS.

Background: Researchers remain divided on the major causes of dropout from active surveillance (AS), with rates of up to 38% among men with no evidence of prostate cancer (PC) progression., Objective: To develop and evaluate an educational intervention in terms of adherence to AS among men with low- to intermediate-risk PC., Design, Setting, and Participants: We first carried out focus group discussions with men who had remained on and dropped out of AS to inform an intervention to increase adherence to AS. A total of 255 consecutive men who had selected AS were then recruited to either standard care (written information and access to a nurse specialist) or standard care and the intervention., Intervention: An educational seminar was designed by patients and clinicians including information on imaging, biopsy techniques, understanding pathology, large AS cohorts - mortality and morbidity risk and diet and lifestyle advice., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The proportion of men dropping out of AS for reasons other than disease progression was assessed at 1 and 5yr after AS selection using multivariate logistic regression., Results and Limitations: Common themes influencing decision-making by men on AS were identified: (1) clinical consistency; (2) information; and (3) lifestyle advice. Addition of an educational seminar led to significantly fewer men dropping out of AS: at 1 and 5yr the dropout rate was 25% and 42%, respectively, in the standard care group, compared to 11% and 22% (p=0.001) in the intervention group. In the intervention group, 18 men failed to attend the seminar., Conclusions: The AS dropout rate was halved following a single educational seminar delivered to groups of men with intermediate- or low-risk PC, even at 5yr., Patient Summary: Men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer feel more supported when provided with an educational seminar within 3 mo of their treatment choice. The seminar halved the number of men dropping-out of AS, even at 5yr., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Within the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) initiative, 25 centers across the globe collaborate to standardize active surveillance (AS) protocols for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). A centralized PCa AS database, comprising data of more than 15000 patients worldwide, was created. Comparability of the histopathology between the different cohorts was assessed by a centralized pathology review of 445 biopsies from 15 GAP3 centers. Grade group 1 (Gleason score 6) in 85% and grade group ≥2 (Gleason score ≥7) in 15% showed 89% concordance at review with moderate agreement (κ=0.56). Average biopsy core length was similar among the analyzed cohorts. Recently established highly adverse pathologies, including cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma, were observed in 3.6% of the reviewed biopsies. In conclusion, the centralized pathology review of 445 biopsies revealed comparable histopathology among the 15 GAP3 centers with a low frequency of high-risk features. This enables further data analyses-without correction-toward uniform global AS guidelines for men with low-risk PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) initiative combines data from 15000 men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) across the globe to standardize active surveillance protocols. Histopathology review confirmed that the histopathology was consistent with low-risk PCa in most men and comparable between different centers., (Crown Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Careful assessment of the reasons for discontinuation of active surveillance (AS) is required for men with prostate cancer (PCa)., Objective: Using Movember's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance initiative (GAP3) database, we report on reasons for AS discontinuation., Design, Setting, and Participants: We compared data from 10296 men on AS from 21 centres across 12 countries., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Cumulative incidence methods were used to estimate the cumulative incidence rates of AS discontinuation., Results and Limitations: During 5-yr follow-up, 27.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.4-28.6%) men showed signs of disease progression, 12.8% (95% CI: 12.0-13.6%) converted to active treatment without evidence of progression, 1.7% (95% CI: 1.5-2.0%) continued to watchful waiting, and 1.7% (95% CI: 1.4-2.1%) died from other causes. Of the 7049 men who remained on AS, 2339 had follow-up for >5yr, 4561 had follow-up for <5yr, and 149 were lost to follow-up. Cumulative incidence of progression was 27.5% (95% CI: 26.4-28.6%) at 5yr and 38.2% (95% CI: 36.7-39.9%) at 10yr. A limitation is that not all centres were included due to limited information on the reason for discontinuation and limited follow-up., Conclusions: Our descriptive analyses of current AS practices worldwide showed that 43.6% of men drop out of AS during 5-yr follow-up, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Improvements in selection tools for AS are thus needed to correctly allocate men with PCa to AS, which will also reduce discontinuation due to conversion to active treatment without evidence of disease progression., Patient Summary: Our assessment of a worldwide database of men with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) shows that 43.6% drop out of AS within 5yr, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Better tools are needed to select and monitor men with PCa as part of AS., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Despite support for active surveillance (AS) as a first treatment choice for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PC), this strategy is largely underutilised., Objective: To systematically review barriers and facilitators to selecting and adhering to AS for low-risk PC., Evidence Acquisition: We searched PsychINFO, PubMed, Medline 2000-now, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central databases between 2002 and 2017 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance (PREFS) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) quality criteria were applied. Forty-seven studies were identified., Evidence Synthesis: Key themes emerged as factors influencing both choice and adherence to AS: (1) patient and tumour factors (age, comorbidities, knowledge, education, socioeconomic status, family history, grade, tumour volume, and fear of progression/side effects); (2) family and social support; (3) provider (speciality, communication, and attitudes); (4) healthcare organisation (geography and type of practice); and (5) health policy (guidelines, year, and awareness)., Conclusions: Many factors influence men's choice and adherence to AS on multiple levels. It is important to learn from the experience of other chronic health conditions as well as from institutions/countries that are making significant headway in appropriately recruiting men to AS protocols, through standardised patient information, clinician education, and nationally agreed guidelines, to ultimately decrease heterogeneity in AS practice., Patient Summary: We reviewed the scientific literature for factors affecting men's choice and adherence to active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer. Our findings suggest that the use of AS could be increased by addressing a variety of factors such as information, psychosocial support, clinician education, and standardised guidelines., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Active surveillance (AS) is commonly used for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). When life expectancy becomes too short for curative treatment to be beneficial, a change from AS to watchful waiting (WW) follows. Little is known about this change since it is rarely documented in medical records., Objective: To model transition from AS to WW and how this is affected by age and comorbidity among men with very low-risk PCa., Design, Setting, and Participants: National population-based healthcare registers were used for analysis., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Using data on PCa characteristics, age, and comorbidity, a state transition model was created to estimate the probability of changes between predefined treatments to estimate transition from AS to WW., Results and Limitations: Our estimates indicate that 48% of men with very low-risk PCa starting AS eventually changed to WW over a life course. This proportion increased with age at time of AS initiation. Within 10 yr from start of AS, 10% of men aged 55 yr and 50% of men aged 70 yr with no comorbidity at initiation changed to WW. Our prevalence simulation suggests that the number of men on WW who were previously on AS will eventually stabilise after 30 yr. A limitation is the limited information from clinical follow-up visits (eg, repeat biopsies)., Conclusions: We estimated that changes from AS to WW become common among men with very low-risk PCa who are elderly. This potential change to WW should be discussed with men starting on AS. Moreover, our estimates may help in planning health care resources allocated to men on AS, as the transition to WW is associated with lower demands on outpatient resources., Patient Summary: Changes from active surveillance to watchful waiting will become more common among men with very low-risk prostate cancer. These observations suggest that patients need to be informed about this potential change before they start on active surveillance., (Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

BackgroundCurrently, follow-up protocols are applied equally to men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) regardless of findings at their initial follow-up biopsy. To determine whether less intensive follow-up is suitable following negative biopsy findings, we assessed the risk of converting to active treatment, any subsequent upgrading, volume progression (>33% positive cores), and serious upgrading (grade group >2) for negative compared with positive findings on initial follow-up biopsy.Methods13,161 men from 24 centres participating in the Global Action Plan Active Surveillance Prostate Cancer [GAP3] consortium database, with baseline grade group ≤2, PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, cT-stage 1-2, diagnosed after 1995, and ≥1 follow-up biopsy, were included in this study. Risk of converting to treatment was assessed using multivariable mixed-effects survival regression. Odds of volume progression, any upgrading and serious upgrading were assessed using mix-effects binary logistic regression for men with ≥2 surveillance biopsies.Results27% of the cohort (n = 3590) had no evidence of PCa at their initial biopsy. Over 50% of subsequent biopsies in this group were also negative. A negative initial biopsy was associated with lower risk of conversion (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-0.49), subsequent upgrading (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; 95%CI: 0.45-0.62) and serious upgrading (OR: 0.74; 95%CI: 0.59-92). Radiological progression was not assessed due to limited imaging data.ConclusionDespite heterogeneity in follow-up schedules, findings from this global study indicated reduced risk of converting to treatment, volume progression, any upgrading and serious upgrading among men whose initial biopsy findings were negative compared with positive. Given the low risk of progression and high likelihood of further negative biopsy findings, consideration should be given to decreasing follow-up intensity for this group to reduce unnecessary invasive biopsies.

BackgroundThe optimal interval for repeat biopsy during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is yet to be defined. This study examined whether risk of upgrading (to grade group ≥ 2) or risk of converting to treatment varied according to intensity of repeat biopsy using data from the GAP3 consortium's global AS database.Materials and methodsIntensity of surveillance biopsy schedules was categorized according to centers' protocols: (a) Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance project (PRIAS) protocols with biopsies at years 1, 4, and 7 (10 centers; 7532 men); (b) biennial biopsies, that is, every other year (8 centers; 4365 men); and (c) annual biopsy schedules (4 centers; 1602 men). Multivariable Cox regression was used to compare outcomes according to biopsy intensity.ResultsOut of the 13,508 eligible participants, 56% were managed according to PRIAS protocols (biopsies at years 1, 4, and 7), 32% via biennial biopsy, and 12% via annual biopsy. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, risk of converting to treatment was greater for those on annual compared with PRIAS biopsy schedules (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.51-1.83; p

Background: The mental wellbeing implications of a prostate cancer diagnosis are increasingly being realised. Significant mental health symptoms such as depression and anxiety, along with related constructs such as fear of cancer recurrence, body image and masculine self-esteem issues are prevalent. However, less is understood about potential prognostic factors for these outcomes in prostate cancer patients. Therefore, this study aims to primarily explore potential treatment, patient and oncological factors associated with mental wellbeing outcomes in the initial prostate cancer follow-up period. Methods: MIND-P is a multi-institutional prospective cohort study recruiting newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients for 12-month follow up. It will aim to recruit a final sample of 300 participants undergoing one of four treatment options: active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, radical radiotherapy, or hormone monotherapy. Questionnaire-based data collection consists of multiple validated mental, physical, and social wellbeing outcomes at baseline and 3-monthly intervals until study completion. Primary analysis will include evaluation of treatment undergone against multiple mental wellbeing outcomes. Secondary analysis will additionally explore multiple patient and oncological prognostic factors of potential importance, along with the cumulative incidence of these outcomes, symptom trajectory and their association with subsequent functional and social outcomes. Conclusion: This cohort study aims to add to the existing limited literature evaluating significant prognostic factors for multiple mental wellbeing outcomes in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients. This may be of potential use for guiding future prognosis research and of clinical use for identifying individuals potentially requiring additional surveillance or support during routine cancer follow up. Study registration: This study was prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04647474). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Quality of life in prostate cancer survivorship is becoming increasingly important, with mental and social wellbeing recognised as key components. However, limited global evaluation of psychosocial challenges experienced after treatment exists. Therefore, we aimed to explore the lived experiences of men who underwent radical treatment, and its psychosocial impact. Material and methods: This qualitative study was conducted using 19 men who had undergone radical treatment (prostatectomy or radiotherapy) for their cancer. Semi-structured interviews were conducted exploring lived experiences of men after treatment. A Structured thematic analysis of collected data was undertaken, with an inductive co-construction of themes through the lens of the biopsychosocial model. Themes generated were considered within a psychological, social, and physical wellbeing framework. Results: An initial knowledge gap meant mental wellbeing was strongly impacted initially leading to a 'Diagnostic Blow and the Search for Clarity'. Doubt over individuals' future resulted in 'An Uncertain Future' in many men. Once treatment was completed a 'Reflective journey' began, with men considering their outcomes and decisions made. Social wellbeing was also impacted with many identifying the 'Emotional Repercussions' on their relationships and the impact their diagnosis had on their partner and family. Many subsequently sought to increase their support through 'The Social Network and Advocacy', while physical changes led to an increased need for 'Social Planning'. Finally, physical wellbeing was highlighted by a continual acknowledgement of the 'Natural process of ageing' leading to a reluctancy to seek help, whilst simultaneously attempting to improve existing health via 'The Health Kick'. Conclusions: Radical treatments have a considerable impact on mental and social wellbeing of individuals. Anxiety after diagnosis and significant uncertainty over individual futures exist, with physical complications of treatment leading to social repercussions. Future research should aim to identify forms of support to improve quality of life of these men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Treatment choice for localized prostate cancer is complicated, as each treatment option comes with various pros and cons. It is well established that active surveillance (AS), may be ended with a change to curative treatment at the time of disease progression, but it is less clear whether secondary treatment after initial curative treatment is required. As part of the PIONEER project, we quantified the probabilities of treatment change. Methods: A cohort study based on PRIAS and ERSPC-Rotterdam data was conducted. Patients were followed up for 10 years or until the 31st of December 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of treatment change following initial treatment (i.e., a change to curative treatment following AS or secondary treatment after initial RP/RT). Results: Over a period of 1 to 5 years after initial treatment, the cumulative incidence of treatment change ranged from 3.8% to 42.8% for AS, from 7.6% to 12.1% for radical prostatectomy (RP) and from no change to 5.3% for radiation therapy (RT). While the possibility of treatment change in AS is known, the numbers within a five-year period were substantial. For RP and RT, the rate of change to secondary treatment was lower, but still non-neglectable, with 5 (10)-year incidences up to 12% (20%) and 5% (16%), respectively. Conclusion: This is one of the first studies comparing the incidence of guideline-recommended treatment changes in men receiving different primary treatments (i.e., AS, RT, or RP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]