Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Urology 1/2024

01-12-2024 | Prostate Cancer | Original Article

The association between patient and disease characteristics, and the risk of disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance

Authors: Matthijs Duijn, Theo M. de Reijke, Kurdo Barwari, Marias J. Hagens, Sybren P. Rynja, Jos Immerzeel, Jelle O. Barentsz, Auke Jager

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this study was to identify and assess patient and disease characteristics associated with an increased risk of disease progression in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance.

Methods

We studied patients with low-risk (ISUP GG1) or favorable intermediate-risk (ISUP GG2) PCa. All patients had at least one repeat biopsy. Disease progression was the primary outcome of this study, based on pathological upgrading. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to evaluate the association between covariates and disease progression.

Results

In total, 240 men were included, of whom 198 (82.5%) were diagnosed with low-risk PCa and 42 (17.5%) with favorable intermediate-risk PCa. Disease progression was observed in 42.9% (103/240) of men. Index lesion > 10 mm (HR = 2.85; 95% CI 1.74–4.68; p < 0.001), MRI (m)T-stage 2b/2c (HR = 2.52; 95% CI 1.16–5.50; p = 0.02), highest PI-RADS score of 5 (HR 3.05; 95% CI 1.48–6.28; p = 0.002) and a higher PSA level (HR 1.06; 95% CI 1.01–1.11; p = 0.014) at baseline were associated with disease progression on univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed no significant baseline predictors of disease progression.

Conclusion

In AS patients with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk PCa, diameter of index lesion, MRI (m)T-stage, height of the PI-RADS score and the PSA level at baseline are significant predictors of disease progression to first repeat biopsy.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ et al (2019) Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 17(5):479–505CrossRef Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ et al (2019) Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 17(5):479–505CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Kinsella N, Helleman J, Bruinsma S et al (2018) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: A systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices. Transl Androl Urol 7(1):83–97CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kinsella N, Helleman J, Bruinsma S et al (2018) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: A systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices. Transl Androl Urol 7(1):83–97CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Yao SL, Grace LY (2002) Understanding and appreciating overdiagnosis in the PSA era. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(13):958–960CrossRefPubMed Yao SL, Grace LY (2002) Understanding and appreciating overdiagnosis in the PSA era. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(13):958–960CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Wei JT, Dunn RL, Sandler HM et al (2002) Comprehensive comparison of health-related quality of life after contemporary therapies for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 20(2):557–566CrossRefPubMed Wei JT, Dunn RL, Sandler HM et al (2002) Comprehensive comparison of health-related quality of life after contemporary therapies for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 20(2):557–566CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Patel N, Ma X et al (2021) Variation in the use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer across US census regions. Front Oncol 11:64488CrossRef Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Patel N, Ma X et al (2021) Variation in the use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer across US census regions. Front Oncol 11:64488CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Bokhorst LP, Alberts AR, Rannikko A et al (2015) Compliance rates with the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol and disease reclassification in noncompliers. Eur Urol 68(5):814–821CrossRefPubMed Bokhorst LP, Alberts AR, Rannikko A et al (2015) Compliance rates with the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol and disease reclassification in noncompliers. Eur Urol 68(5):814–821CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R et al (2011) The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 20(2):291–303CrossRef Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R et al (2011) The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 20(2):291–303CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L (2011) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: Progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 29(27):3669–3676CrossRefPubMed Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L (2011) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: Progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 29(27):3669–3676CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Williams C, Khondakar NR, Daneshvar MA et al (2021) The risk of prostate cancer progression in active surveillance patients with bilateral disease detected by combined magnetic resonance imaging-fusion and systematic biopsy. J Urol 206(5):1157–1165CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Williams C, Khondakar NR, Daneshvar MA et al (2021) The risk of prostate cancer progression in active surveillance patients with bilateral disease detected by combined magnetic resonance imaging-fusion and systematic biopsy. J Urol 206(5):1157–1165CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Eggener SE, Rumble RB, Armstrong AJ et al (2020) Molecular biomarkers in localized prostate cancer: ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol 38(13):1474–1494CrossRefPubMed Eggener SE, Rumble RB, Armstrong AJ et al (2020) Molecular biomarkers in localized prostate cancer: ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol 38(13):1474–1494CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Loeb S, Bruinsma SM, Nicholson J et al (2015) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur Urol 67(4):619–626CrossRefPubMed Loeb S, Bruinsma SM, Nicholson J et al (2015) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur Urol 67(4):619–626CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Olivier J, Li W, Nieboer D et al (2022) Prostate cancer patients under active surveillance with a suspicious magnetic resonance imaging finding are at increased risk of needing treatment: results of the movember foundation’s Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) Consortium. Eur Urol Open Sci 35:59–67CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Olivier J, Li W, Nieboer D et al (2022) Prostate cancer patients under active surveillance with a suspicious magnetic resonance imaging finding are at increased risk of needing treatment: results of the movember foundation’s Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) Consortium. Eur Urol Open Sci 35:59–67CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Iremashvili V, Soloway MS, Rosenberg DL et al (2012) Clinical and demographic characteristics associated with prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance. J Urol 187(5):1594–1599CrossRefPubMed Iremashvili V, Soloway MS, Rosenberg DL et al (2012) Clinical and demographic characteristics associated with prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance. J Urol 187(5):1594–1599CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Barayan GA, Brimo F, Bégin LR et al (2014) Factors influencing disease progression of prostate cancer under active surveillance: a McGill University Health Center cohort. BJU Int 114(6b):e99–e104CrossRefPubMed Barayan GA, Brimo F, Bégin LR et al (2014) Factors influencing disease progression of prostate cancer under active surveillance: a McGill University Health Center cohort. BJU Int 114(6b):e99–e104CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Iremashvili V, Manoharan M, Rosenberg DL et al (2013) Biopsy features associated with prostate cancer progression in active surveillance patients: comparison of three statistical models. BJU Int 111(4):574–579CrossRefPubMed Iremashvili V, Manoharan M, Rosenberg DL et al (2013) Biopsy features associated with prostate cancer progression in active surveillance patients: comparison of three statistical models. BJU Int 111(4):574–579CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Kotb AF, Tanguay S, Luz MA et al (2011) Relationship between initial PSA density with future PSA kinetics and repeat biopsies in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 14(1):53–57CrossRefPubMed Kotb AF, Tanguay S, Luz MA et al (2011) Relationship between initial PSA density with future PSA kinetics and repeat biopsies in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 14(1):53–57CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
go back to reference Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R et al (2013) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 63(4):597–603CrossRefPubMed Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R et al (2013) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 63(4):597–603CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The association between patient and disease characteristics, and the risk of disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance
Authors
Matthijs Duijn
Theo M. de Reijke
Kurdo Barwari
Marias J. Hagens
Sybren P. Rynja
Jos Immerzeel
Jelle O. Barentsz
Auke Jager
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-04805-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

World Journal of Urology 1/2024 Go to the issue