Gleason Upgrading with Time in a Large Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohort

PURPOSE: We report the percentage of patients on active surveillance who had disease pathologically upgraded and factors that predict for upgrading on surveillance biopsies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in our active surveillance database with at least 1 repeat prostate biopsy were included. Histological upgrading was defined as any increase in primary or secondary Gleason grade on repeat biopsy. Multivariate analysis was used to determine baseline and dynamic factors associated with Gleason upgrading. This information was used to develop a nomogram to predict for upgrading or treatment in patients electing for active surveillance.

RESULTS: Of 862 patients in our cohort 592 had 2 or more biopsies. Median followup was 6.4 years. Of the patients 20% were intermediate risk, 0.3% were high risk and all others were low risk. During active surveillance 31.3% of cases were upgraded. On multivariate analysis clinical stage T2, higher prostate specific antigen and higher percentage of cores involved with disease at the time of diagnosis predicted for upgrading. A total of 27 cases (15% of those upgraded) were Gleason 8 or higher at upgrading, and 62% of all 114 upgraded cases went on to have active treatment. The nomogram incorporated clinical stage, age, prostate specific antigen, core positivity and Gleason score. The concordance index was 0.61.

CONCLUSIONS: In this large re-biopsy cohort with medium-term followup, most cases have not been pathologically upgraded to date. A model predicting for upgrading or radical treatment was developed which could be useful in counseling patients considering active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Long-Term Follow-Up of a Large Active Surveillance Cohort of Patients With Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE: Active surveillance is increasingly accepted as a treatment option for favorable-risk prostate cancer. Long-term follow-up has been lacking. In this study, we report the long-term outcome of a large active surveillance protocol in men with favorable-risk prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective single-arm cohort study carried out at a single academic health sciences center, 993 men with favorable- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were managed with an initial expectant approach. Intervention was offered for a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of less than 3 years, Gleason score progression, or unequivocal clinical progression. Main outcome measures were overall and disease-specific survival, rate of treatment, and PSA failure rate in the treated patients.

RESULTS: Among the 819 survivors, the median follow-up time from the first biopsy is 6.4 years (range, 0.2 to 19.8 years). One hundred forty-nine (15%) of 993 patients died, and 844 patients are alive (censored rate, 85.0%). There were 15 deaths (1.5%) from prostate cancer. The 10- and 15-year actuarial cause-specific survival rates were 98.1% and 94.3%, respectively. An additional 13 patients (1.3%) developed metastatic disease and are alive with confirmed metastases (n = 9) or have died of other causes (n = 4). At 5, 10, and 15 years, 75.7%, 63.5%, and 55.0% of patients remained untreated and on surveillance. The cumulative hazard ratio for nonprostate-to-prostate cancer mortality was 9.2:1.

CONCLUSION: Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer is feasible and seems safe in the 15-year time frame. In our cohort, 2.8% of patients have developed metastatic disease, and 1.5% have died of prostate cancer. This mortality rate is consistent with expected mortality in favorable-risk patients managed with initial definitive intervention.

Sector analysis provides additional spatial information on the permanent prostate brachytherapy learning curve

PURPOSE: To evaluate the permanent prostate brachytherapy (PPB) learning curve using postimplant multisector dosimetric analysis and to assess the correlation between sector -specific dosimetry and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS AND METHODS: First 200 patients treated with (125)I PPB monotherapy (145 Gy) at a single institution were assessed. Postimplant dosimetry (PID) using CT was evaluated for whole prostate (global) and 12 sectors, assessing minimum dose to 90% of prostate (D90) and dose to 0.1 cm(3) of rectum (D0.1cc). Global and sector PID results were evaluated to investigate changes in D90 with case number. Urinary and bowel PROMs were assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire. The correlation between global and individual sector PID and urinary/bowel PROMs was also evaluated.

RESULTS: Linear regression confirmed a significant improvement in global D90 with case number (r(2) = 0.20; p = 0.001) at a rate of 0.11 Gy/case. Postimplant D90 of base sectors increased at a rate of 0.11-0.15 Gy/case (p = 0.0001) and matched global improvement. The regression lines of midgland and apex sectors were significantly different from global D90 (p = 0.01). Posterior midgland sectors showed a significant reduction in D90 with case number at a rate of 0.13-0.19 Gy/case (p = 0.01). Dose to posterior midgland sectors correlated with rectal D0.1cc dose but not bowel PROMs. Dose to posterior midgland sectors correlated with urinary International Prostate Symptom Score change, which was not apparent when global D90 alone was considered.

CONCLUSIONS: Sector analysis provided increased spatial information regarding the PPB learning curve. Furthermore, sector analysis correlated with urinary PROMs and rectal dose.

Establishing a population-based patient-reported outcomes study (PROMs) using national cancer registries across two jurisdictions: The Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience (PiCTure) study

Objective: To establish an international patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) study among prostate cancer survivors, up to 18 years postdiagnosis, in two countries with different healthcare systems and ethical frameworks. Design: A cross-sectional, postal survey of prostate cancer survivors sampled and recruited via two population-based cancer registries. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) evaluated patients for eligibility to participate. Questionnaires contained validated instruments to assess health-related quality of life and psychological well-being, including QLQ-C30, QLQPR-25, EQ-5D-5L, 21-question Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and the Decisional Regret Scale. Setting: Republic of Ireland (RoI) and Northern Ireland (NI). Primary outcome measures: Registration completeness, predictors of eligibility and response, data missingness, unweighted and weighted PROMs. Results: Prostate cancer registration was 80% (95% CI 75% to 84%) and 91% (95% CI 89% to 93%) complete 2 years postdiagnosis in NI and RoI, respectively. Of 12 322 survivors sampled from registries, 53% (n=6559) were classified as eligible following HCP screening. In the multivariate analysis, significant predictors of eligibility were: being ≤59 years of age at diagnosis (p<0.001), short-term survivor (<5 years postdiagnosis; p<0.001) and from RoI (p<0.001). 3348 completed the questionnaire, yielding a 54% adjusted response rate. 13% of men or their families called the study freephone with queries for assistance with questionnaire completion or to talk about their experience. Significant predictors of response in multivariate analysis were: being ≤59 years at diagnosis (p<0.001) and from RoI (p=0.016). Mean number of missing questions in validated instruments ranged from 0.12 (SD 0.71; EQ-5D-5L) to 3.72 (SD 6.30; QLQ-PR25). Weighted and unweighted mean EQ-5D-5L, QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25 scores were similar, as were the weighted and unweighted prevalences of depression, anxiety and distress. Conclusions: It was feasible to perform PROMs studies across jurisdictions, using cancer registries as sampling frames; we amassed one of the largest, international, population-based data set of prostate cancer survivors. We highlight improvements which could inform future PROMs studies, including utilising general practitioners to assess eligibility and providing a freephone service.

A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a 6-month dietary and physical activity intervention for patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE: Treatment of prostate cancer with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with an increased fat mass, decreased lean mass, increased fatigue and a reduction in quality of life (QoL). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a 6-month dietary and physical activity intervention for prostate cancer patients receiving ADT, to help minimise these side effects.

METHODS: Patients (n = 94) were recruited to this study if they were planned to receive ADT for prostate cancer for at least 6 months. Men randomised to the intervention arm received a dietary and exercise intervention, commensurate with UK healthy eating and physical activity recommendations. The primary outcome of interest was body composition; secondary outcomes included fatigue, QoL, functional capacity, stress and dietary change.

RESULTS: The intervention group had a significant (p < 0.001) reduction in weight, body mass index and percentage fat mass compared to the control group at 6 months; the between-group differences were -3.3 kg (95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) -4.5, -2.1), -1.1 kg/m(2) (95 % CI -1.5, -0.7) and -2.1 % (95 % CI -2.8, -1.4), respectively, after adjustment for baseline values. The intervention resulted in improvements in functional capacity (p < 0.001) and dietary intakes but did not significantly impact fatigue, QoL or stress scores at endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS: A 6-month diet and physical activity intervention can minimise the adverse body composition changes associated with ADT.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This study shows that a pragmatic lifestyle intervention is feasible and can have a positive impact on health behaviours and other key outcomes in men with prostate cancer receiving ADT.