Top

World Journal of Urology

Published in:

Open Access 01-06-2021 | Prostate Cancer | Original Article

Predictors of adverse pathology on radical prostatectomy specimen in men initially enrolled in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer

Authors: Lars Björnebo, Henrik Olsson, Tobias Nordström, Fredrik Jäderling, Henrik Grönberg, Martin Eklund, Anna Lantz

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 6/2021

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate clinical variables, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) predictive of adverse pathology (AP) at radical prostatectomy (RP) in men initially enrolled in active surveillance (AS).

Methods

A population-based cohort study of men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), in Stockholm County, Sweden, during 2008–2017 enrolled in AS their intended primary treatment followed by RP. AP was defined as ISUP grade group ≥ 3 and/or pT-stage ≥ T3. Association between clinical variables at diagnosis and time to AP was evaluated using Cox regression and multivariate logistic regression to evaluate the association between AP and clinical variables at last biopsy before RP.

Results

In a cohort of 6021 patients with low-risk PCa, 3116 were selected for AS and 216 underwent RP. Follow-up was 10 years, with a median time on AS of 23 months. 37.7% of patients had AP at RP. Clinical T-stage [Hazard ratio (HR): 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04–3.18] and PSA (HR: 1.31, 95% CI 1.17–1.46) at diagnosis and age [Odds Ratio (OR): 1.09, 95% CI 1.02–1.18), PSA (OR: 1.22, 95% CI 1.07–1.41), and PI-RADS (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.11–2.55)] at last re-biopsy were significantly associated with AP.

Conclusion

PI-RADS score is significantly associated with AP at RP and support current guidelines recommending MRI before enrollment in AS. Furthermore, age, cT-stage, and PSA are significantly associated with AP.

Available only for authorised users

Johansson JE, Andrén O, Andersson SO, Dickman PW, Holmberg L, Magnuson A et al (2004) Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc 291:2713–2719. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.22.2713CrossRef

Kessler B, Albertsen P (2003) The natural history of prostate cancer. Urol Clin N Am 30:219–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-0143(02)00182-9CrossRef

Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003CrossRefPubMed

Andrén O, Thellenberg Carlsson C, Styrke J, Johansson E, Åström L, Carlsson S et al. (2019) Nationellt vårdprogram prostatacancer

Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:272–277. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192CrossRefPubMed

Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Stauf F, Cooperberg MR et al (2008) Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 112:2664–2670. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23502CrossRefPubMed

Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, Landis P, Wolf S, Trock BJ et al (2015) Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:3379–3385. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A et al (2013) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 63:597–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005CrossRefPubMed

Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, Kakehi Y, Pickles T, Bangma CH et al (2016) A Decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol 70:954–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.007CrossRefPubMed

10.

Reese AC, Feng Z, Landis P, Trock BJ, Epstein JI, Carter HB (2015) Predictors of adverse pathology in men undergoing radical prostatectomy following initial active surveillance. Urology 86:991–997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.07.039CrossRefPubMed

11.

De Cobelli O, Terracciano D, Tagliabue E, Raimondi S, Bottero D, Cioffi A et al (2015) Predicting pathological features at radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139696CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Kaye DR, Qi J, Morgan TM, Linsell S, Ginsburg KB, Lane BR et al (2019) Pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy for patients with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: implications of confirmatory testing for patients considering active surveillance. BJU Int 123:846–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14554CrossRefPubMed

13.

Vellekoop A, Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Stattin P (2014) Population based study of predictors of adverse pathology among candidates for active surveillance with Gleason 6 prostate cancer. J Urol 191:350–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.09.034CrossRefPubMed

14.

Van Hemelrijck M, Wigertz A, Sandin F, Garmo H, Hellström K, Fransson P et al (2013) Cohort profile: the national prostate cancer register of sweden and prostate cancer data base Sweden 2.0. Int J Epidemiol 42:956–967. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dys068CrossRefPubMed

15.

R Development Core Team 3.0.1 (2013) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Found Stat Comput 2. https://www.R-project.org

16.

Wong LM, Neal DE, Johnston RB, Shah N, Sharma N, Warren AY et al (2012) International multicentre study examining selection criteria for active surveillance in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Br J Cancer 107:1467–1473. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.400CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Gershman B, Dahl DM, Olumi AF, Young RH, McDougal WS, Wu CL (2013) Smaller prostate gland size and older age predict Gleason score upgrading. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 31:1033–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.11.032CrossRef

18.

Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ, D’Amico AV, Davis BJ, Dorff T et al (2019) Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 17:479–505CrossRef

19.

Jayadevan R, Felker ER, Kwan L, Barsa DE, Zhang H, Sisk AE et al (2019) Magnetic resonance imaging-guided confirmatory biopsy for initiating active surveillance of prostate cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2:e1911019. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11019CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 67:627–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.050CrossRefPubMed

21.

Klotz L, Pond G, Loblaw A, Sugar L, Moussa M, Berman D et al (2020) Randomized study of systematic biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging and targeted and systematic biopsy in men on active surveillance (ASIST): 2-year postbiopsy follow-up. Eur Urol 77:311–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.007CrossRefPubMed

22.

Amin A, Scheltema MJ, Shnier R, Blazevski A, Moses D, Cusick T et al (2019) The magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance “MRIAS” trial: use of baseline multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and saturation biopsy to reduce the frequency of surveillance prostate biopsies. J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000000693CrossRefPubMed

23.

Hamoen EHJ, Hoeks CMA, Somford DM, van Oort IM, Vergunst H, Oddens JR et al (2019) Value of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging–guided biopsies in men with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance after 1 yr follow-up. Eur Urol Focus 5:407–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.12.008CrossRefPubMed

24.

Gallagher KM, Christopher E, Cameron AJ, Little S, Innes A, Davis G et al (2019) Four-year outcomes from a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based active surveillance programme: PSA dynamics and serial MRI scans allow omission of protocol biopsies. BJU Int 123:429–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14513CrossRefPubMed

25.

Elkjær MC, Andersen MH, Høyer S, Pedersen BG, Borre M (2018) Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging monitoring patients in active surveillance for prostate cancer: a prospective cohort study. Scand J Urol 52:8–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2017.1409265CrossRefPubMed

26.

Llorente C (2020) Re: role of changes in magnetic resonance imaging or clinical stage in evaluation of disease progression for men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.02.030CrossRefPubMed

27.

Ehdaie B, Assel M, Benfante N, Malhotra D, Vickers A (2017) A systematic approach to discussing active surveillance with patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 71:866–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.026CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Loeb S, Walter D, Curnyn C, Gold HT, Lepor H, Makarov DV (2016) How active is active surveillance? Intensity of followup during active surveillance for prostate cancer in the United States. J Urol 196:721–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.2963CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Olsson H, Nordström T, Clements M, Grönberg H, Lantz AW, Eklund M (2019) Intensity of active surveillance and transition to treatment in men with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.05.005CrossRefPubMed

30.

Kalapara AA, Verbeek JFM, Nieboer D, Fahey M, Gnanapragasam V, Van Hemelrijck M et al (2020) Adherence to active surveillance protocols for low-risk prostate cancer: results of the movember foundation’s global action plan prostate cancer active surveillance initiative. Eur Urol Oncol 3:80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.014CrossRefPubMed

Title: Predictors of adverse pathology on radical prostatectomy specimen in men initially enrolled in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer
Authors: Lars Björnebo
Henrik Olsson
Tobias Nordström
Fredrik Jäderling
Henrik Grönberg
Martin Eklund
Anna Lantz
Publication date: 01-06-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Prostate Cancer
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Prostate Cancer
Prostatectomy
Pathology
Prostatectomy
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 6/2021
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03394-7

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Predictors of adverse pathology on radical prostatectomy specimen in men initially enrolled in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2021

Comparison of the ablation rates, fissures and fragments produced with 150 µm and 272 µm laser fibers with superpulsed thulium fiber laser: an in vitro study

Urinary and sexual function after treatment with temporary implantable nitinol device (iTind) in men with LUTS: 6-month interim results of the MT-06-study

Adjuvant chemotherapy is ineffective in patients with bladder cancer and variant histology treated with radical cystectomy with curative intent

Development of a nomogram predicting metastatic disease and the assessment of NCCN, AUA and EAU guideline recommendations for bone imaging in prostate cancer patients

Informative value of histological assessment of tissue acquired during aquablation of the prostate

Late complications of robot-assisted radical cystectomy with totally intracorporeal urinary diversion