» Articles » PMID: 26327354

Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in the Prospective, Multi-Institutional Canary PASS Cohort

Abstract

Purpose: Active surveillance represents a strategy to address the overtreatment of prostate cancer, yet uncertainty regarding individual patient outcomes remains a concern. We evaluated outcomes in a prospective multicenter study of active surveillance.

Materials And Methods: We studied 905 men in the prospective Canary PASS enrolled between 2008 and 2013. We collected clinical data at study entry and at prespecified intervals, and determined associations with adverse reclassification, defined as increased Gleason grade or greater cancer volume on followup biopsy. We also evaluated the relationships of clinical parameters with pathology findings in participants who underwent surgery after a period of active surveillance.

Results: At a median followup of 28 months 24% of participants experienced adverse reclassification, of whom 53% underwent treatment while 31% continued on active surveillance. Overall 19% of participants received treatment, 68% with adverse reclassification, while 32% opted for treatment without disease reclassification. In multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling the percent of biopsy cores with cancer, body mass index and prostate specific antigen density were associated with adverse reclassification (p=0.01, 0.04, 0.04, respectively). Of 103 participants subsequently treated with radical prostatectomy 34% had adverse pathology, defined as primary pattern 4-5 or nonorgan confined disease, including 2 with positive lymph nodes, with no significant relationship between risk category at diagnosis and findings at surgery (p=0.76).

Conclusions: Most men remain on active surveillance at 5 years without adverse reclassification or adverse pathology at surgery. However, clinical factors had only a modest association with disease reclassification, supporting the need for approaches that improve the prediction of this outcome.

Citing Articles

Association between beta-blocker atenolol use and prostate cancer upgrading in active surveillance.

Zahalka A, Fram E, Garden E, Howard L, Wiggins E, Babar M BJUI Compass. 2024; 5(11):1095-1100.

PMID: 39539558 PMC: 11557265. DOI: 10.1002/bco2.441.


Validation of a prognostic blood-based sphingolipid panel for men with localized prostate cancer followed on active surveillance.

Gregg J, Newcomb L, Wu R, Dennison J, Davis J, Pettaway C Biomark Res. 2024; 12(1):134.

PMID: 39522029 PMC: 11550521. DOI: 10.1186/s40364-024-00678-7.


Evaluating 4Kscore's role in predicting progression on active surveillance for prostate cancer independently of clinical information and PIRADS score.

Hougen H, Reis I, Han S, Prakash N, Thomas J, Stoyanova R Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024; 28(1):180-186.

PMID: 39333697 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00898-w.


Active surveillance selection and 3-year durability in intermediate-risk prostate cancer following genomic testing.

Lenz L, Clegg W, Iliev D, Kasten C, Korman H, Morgan T Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024; .

PMID: 39237680 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00888-y.


Treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer with active surveillance in the routine care-Long-term outcomes of a prospective noninterventional study (HAROW).

Weissbach L, Schwarte A, Boedefeld E, Herden J Curr Urol. 2024; 18(2):115-121.

PMID: 39176297 PMC: 11337982. DOI: 10.1097/CU9.0000000000000203.


References
1.
Tosoian J, Trock B, Landis P, Feng Z, Epstein J, Partin A . Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(16):2185-90. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112. View

2.
Newcomb L, Brooks J, Carroll P, Feng Z, Gleave M, Nelson P . Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study: design of a multi-institutional active surveillance cohort and biorepository. Urology. 2009; 75(2):407-13. PMC: 3827723. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.05.050. View

3.
Kattan M, Eastham J, Stapleton A, Wheeler T, Scardino P . A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998; 90(10):766-71. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/90.10.766. View

4.
Cooperberg M, Pasta D, Elkin E, Litwin M, Latini D, Du Chane J . The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005; 173(6):1938-42. PMC: 2948569. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000158155.33890.e7. View

5.
DallEra M, Albertsen P, Bangma C, Carroll P, Carter H, Cooperberg M . Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2012; 62(6):976-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.072. View