Search

BACKGROUND: Between 1999 and 2009 in the United Kingdom, 82,429 men between 50 and 69 years of age received a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. Localized prostate cancer was diagnosed in 2664 men. Of these men, 1643 were enrolled in a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, with 545 randomly assigned to receive active monitoring, 553 to undergo prostatectomy, and 545 to undergo radiotherapy. METHODS: At a median follow-up of 15 years (range, 11 to 21), we compared the results in this population with respect to death from prostate cancer (the primary outcome) and death from any cause, metastases, disease progression, and initiation of longterm androgen-deprivation therapy (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: Follow-up was complete for 1610 patients (98%). A risk-stratification analysis showed that more than one third of the men had intermediate or high-risk disease at diagnosis. Death from prostate cancer occurred in 45 men (2.7%): 17 (3.1%) in the active-monitoring group, 12 (2.2%) in the prostatectomy group, and 16 (2.9%) in the radiotherapy group (P=0.53 for the overall comparison). Death from any cause occurred in 356 men (21.7%), with similar numbers in all three groups. Metastases developed in 51 men (9.4%) in the active-monitoring group, in 26 (4.7%) in the prostatectomy group, and in 27 (5.0%) in the radiotherapy group. Long-term androgen-deprivation therapy was initiated in 69 men (12.7%), 40 (7.2%), and 42 (7.7%), respectively; clinical progression occurred in 141 men (25.9%), 58 (10.5%), and 60 (11.0%), respectively. In the active-monitoring group, 133 men (24.4%) were alive without any prostate cancer treatment at the end of follow-up. No differential effects on cancer-specific mortality were noted in relation to the baseline PSA level, tumor stage or grade, or risk-stratification score. No treatment complications were reported after the 10-year analysis. CONCLUSIONS: After 15 years of follow-up, prostate cancer–specific mortality was low regardless of the treatment assigned. Thus, the choice of therapy involves weighing trade-offs between benefits and harms associated with treatments for localized prostate cancer. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; ProtecT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172.)

OBJECTIVES: The ProtecT (Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) trial randomised 1,643 men with localised prostate cancer (PCa) to active monitoring, radical prostatectomy or radical radiotherapy. At 10-year median follow-up there were no differences in mortality between groups, but men receiving radical treatment had their disease progression reduced by half. We tested the hypothesis that the baseline clinico-pathological features of men who progressed (n=198) were different from those with stable disease (n=1,409).PATIENTS AND METHODS: We stratified the participants' cohort at baseline according to risk of progression using clinical disease stage, pathological grade and PSA, using Cox proportional hazard models.RESULTS: The findings demonstrated that 34% (n=505) of men had intermediate or high-risk disease, and 66% (n=973) had low-risk PCa. Of 198 men who progressed, 101 (51%) had baseline International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group 1, 59 (30%) Grade Group 2, and 38 (19%) Grade Group 3 PCa, compared with 79%, 17% and 5% respectively for 1,409 men without progression (pCONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that one-third of the ProtecT cohort consists of intermediate / high risk disease, and the outcomes data at an average of 10-years follow-up are generalisable beyond men with low-risk PCa.

Objectives To develop a consensus statement on current best practice of active surveillance (AS) in the UK, informed by patients and clinical experts. Subjects and Methods A consensus statement was drafted on the basis of three sources of data: systematic literature search of national and international guidelines; data arising from a Freedom of Information Act request to UK urology departments regarding their current practice of AS; and survey and interview responses from men with localized prostate cancer regarding their experiences and views of AS. The Prostate Cancer UK Expert Reference Group (ERG) on AS was then convened to discuss and refine the statement. Results Guidelines and protocols for AS varied significantly in terms of risk stratification, criteria for offering AS, and protocols for AS between and within countries. Patients and healthcare professionals identified clinical, emotional and process needs for AS to be effective. Men with prostate cancer wanted more information and psychological support at the time of discussing AS with the treating team and in the first 2 years of AS, and a named healthcare professional to discuss any questions or concerns they had. The ERG agreed 30 consensus statements regarding best practice for AS. Statements were grouped under headings: ‘Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria’; ‘AS follow-up protocol’ and ‘When to stop AS’. Conclusion Significant variation currently exists in the practice of AS in the UK and internationally. Men have clear views on the level of involvement in treatment decisions and support from their treating professionals when receiving AS. The Prostate Cancer UK AS ERG has developed a set of consensus statements for best practice in AS. Evidence for best practice in AS, and the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in AS, is still evolving, and further studies are needed to determine how to optimize AS outcomes

Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 2.29, 117-125

International audience

$\textit{Background:}$ Early detection and treatment of asymptomatic men with advanced and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) may improve survival rates. $\textit{Objective:}$ To determine outcomes for men diagnosed with advanced PCa following prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing who were excluded from the ProtecT randomised trial. $\textit{Design, setting, and participants:}$ Mortality was compared for 492 men followed up for a median of 7.4 yr to a contemporaneous cohort of men from the UK Anglia Cancer Network (ACN) and with a matched subset from the ACN. $\textit{Outcome measurements and statistical analysis:}$ PCa-specific and all-cause mortality were compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox’s proportional hazards regression. $\textit{Results and limitations:}$ Of the 492 men excluded from the ProtecT cohort, 37 (8%) had metastases (N1, M0 = 5, M1 = 32) and 305 had locally advanced disease (62%). The median PSA was 17 $\mu$g/l. Treatments included radical prostatectomy (RP; $n$ = 54; 11%), radiotherapy (RT; $n$ = 245; 50%), androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; $n$ = 122; 25%), other treatments ($n$ = 11; 2%), and unknown ($n$ = 60; 12%). There were 49 PCa-specific deaths (10%), of whom 14 men had received radical treatment (5%); and 129 all-cause deaths (26%). In matched ProtecT and ACN cohorts, 37 (9%) and 64 (16%), respectively, died of PCa, while 89 (22%) and 103 (26%) died of all causes. ProtecT men had a 45% lower risk of death from PCa compared to matched cases (hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.38–0.83; $p$ = 0.0037), but mortality was similar in those treated radically. The non-randomised design is a limitation. $\textit{Conclusions:}$ Men with PSA-detected advanced PCa excluded from ProtecT and treated radically had low rates of PCa death at 7.4-yr follow-up. Among men who underwent nonradical treatment, the ProtecT group had a lower rate of PCa death. Early detection through PSA testing, leadtime bias, and group heterogeneity are possible factors in this finding. $\textit{Patient summary:}$ Prostate cancer that has spread outside the prostate gland without causing symptoms can be detected via prostate-specific antigen testing and treated, leading to low rates of death from this disease.