Active Surveillance-Is It Feasible for Intermediate-risk Localised Prostate Cancer?

Subhabrata Mukherjee; Ioannis Promponas; Neophytos Petrides; Dafader Hossain; Jayasimha Abbaraju; Sanjeev Madaan

doi:10.1016/j.euros.2020.12.005

Active Surveillance-Is It Feasible for Intermediate-risk Localised Prostate Cancer?

Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021 Jan 8:24:17-24. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2020.12.005. eCollection 2021 Feb.

Authors

Subhabrata Mukherjee¹, Ioannis Promponas¹, Neophytos Petrides¹, Dafader Hossain¹, Jayasimha Abbaraju¹, Sanjeev Madaan¹

Affiliation

¹ Department of Urology and Nephrology, Darent Valley Hospital, Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust, Dartford, UK.

Abstract

Background: Although active surveillance (AS) is a well-recognised treatment option for localised low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC), its role in the management of localised intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) is not clear yet and the available literature is slightly contradictory.

Objective: To compare the outcome of AS between LRPC and IRPC patients.

Design setting and participants: Between November 2002 and August 2019, 372 men with localised prostate cancer (PC) underwent AS in our hospital based on local departmental protocol.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary outcome measures were overall survival, disease progression-free survival, treatment-free survival, and biochemical recurrence-free survival. Survival times in the low- and intermediate-risk groups were compared using Cox regression analysis.

Results and limitations: Out of 372 localised PC patients, 276 (74%) had LRPC and 96 (26%) IRPC. Overall, 86 (31.2%) low-risk and 25 (26%) intermediate-risk patients developed disease progression, and 86 (31.2%) low-risk and 22 (23%) intermediate-risk patients underwent active treatment. Among the treated patients, eight (2.9%) LRPC patients and one (1%) IRPC patient developed biochemical recurrence. In total, only one patient (from the low-risk group) had metastasis and 25 patients passed away (18 from the low-risk and seven from the intermediate-risk group). No death was recorded due to PC in the cohort. There was no difference in any of the survival outcomes between LRPC and IRPC patients in unadjusted analysis as well as when analysis was performed after adjusting the potentially confounding factors. Limitations include relatively short median follow-up time and failure to objectively define the criteria for the selection of IRPC patients suitable for AS.

Conclusions: The option of AS could be considered for carefully selected and well-informed patients with IRPC provided close structured monitoring is maintained.

Patient summary: In this report, we looked at various survival outcomes of active surveillance between low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients in a large British population. There was no difference in any of the survival outcomes between the two groups. We concluded that carefully selected intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients could be offed the option of active surveillance.

Keywords: Active surveillance; Intermediate-risk prostate cancer; Low-risk prostate cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer; Prostate-specific antigen.