Expanding Inclusion Criteria for Active Surveillance in Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: a Machine Learning Approach

Methods: Retrospective study including patients from 14 referral centers who underwent pre-biopsy mpMRI, image-guided biopsies and radical prostatectomy. The cohort included biopsy-naive IR PCa patients who met the following inclusion criteria: Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 1-2, PSA < 20 ng/mL, and cT1-cT2 tumors. We relied on a recursive machine learning partitioning algorithm developed to predict adverse pathological features (i.e., ≥ pT3a and/or pN + and/or GGG ≥ 3).

Results: A total of 594 patients with IR PCa were included, of whom 220 (37%) had adverse features. PI-RADS score (weight:0.726), PSA density (weight:0.158), and clinical T stage (weight:0.116) were selected as the most informative risk factors to classify patients according to their risk of adverse features, leading to the creation of five risk clusters. The adverse feature rates for cluster #1 (PI-RADS ≤ 3 and PSA density < 0.15), cluster #2 (PI-RADS 4 and PSA density < 0.15), cluster #3 (PI-RADS 1-4 and PSA density ≥ 0.15), cluster #4 (normal DRE and PI-RADS 5), and cluster #5 (abnormal DRE and PI-RADS 5) were 11.8, 27.9, 37.3, 42.7, and 65.1%, respectively. Compared with the current inclusion criteria, extending the AS criteria to clusters #1 + #2 or #1 + #2 + #3 would increase the number of eligible patients (+ 60 and + 253%, respectively) without increasing the risk of adverse pathological features.

Conclusions: The newly developed model has the potential to expand the number of patients eligible for AS without compromising oncologic outcomes. Prospective validation is warranted.

References

Albertsen P, Hanley J, Fine J . 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2005; 293(17):2095-101. DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.17.2095. View

Albertsen P . Observational studies and the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2015; 25(3):232-7. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000157. View

Tosoian J, Mamawala M, Epstein J, Landis P, Wolf S, Trock B . Intermediate and Longer-Term Outcomes From a Prospective Active-Surveillance Program for Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33(30):3379-85. PMC: 4863946. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764. View

Womble P, Montie J, Ye Z, Linsell S, Lane B, Miller D . Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014; 67(1):44-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.024. View

Tosoian J, Mamawala M, Epstein J, Landis P, Macura K, Simopoulos D . Active Surveillance of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer: Long-term Outcomes from a Large Prospective Cohort. Eur Urol. 2020; 77(6):675-682. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.12.017. View

Klotz L . Active surveillance: patient selection. Curr Opin Urol. 2013; 23(3):239-44. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835f8f6b. View

Schaeffer E, Srinivas S, Antonarakis E, Armstrong A, Bekelman J, Cheng H . NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2021. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021; 19(2):134-143. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0008. View

Mottet N, van den Bergh R, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch M, De Santis M . EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2020; 79(2):243-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042. View

Chen R, Rumble R, Loblaw D, Finelli A, Ehdaie B, Cooperberg M . Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(18):2182-90. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7759. View

10.

Lam T, MacLennan S, Willemse P, Mason M, Plass K, Shepherd R . EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel Consensus Statements for Deferred Treatment with Curative Intent for Localised Prostate Cancer from an International Collaborative Study (DETECTIVE Study). Eur Urol. 2019; 76(6):790-813. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.020. View

11.

Nyame Y, Almassi N, Haywood S, Greene D, Ganesan V, Dai C . Intermediate-Term Outcomes for Men with Very Low/Low and Intermediate/High Risk Prostate Cancer Managed by Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2017; 198(3):591-599. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.123. View

12.

Barentsz J, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G . ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22(4):746-57. PMC: 3297750. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y. View

13.

Weinreb J, Barentsz J, Choyke P, Cornud F, Haider M, Macura K . PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2015; 69(1):16-40. PMC: 6467207. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052. View

14.

Willemse P, Davis N, Grivas N, Zattoni F, Lardas M, Briers E . Systematic Review of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer to Develop Recommendations Regarding Inclusion of Intermediate-risk Disease, Biopsy Characteristics at Inclusion and Monitoring, and Surveillance Repeat Biopsy Strategy. Eur Urol. 2022; 81(4):337-346. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.12.007. View

15.

Ploussard G, Rouviere O, Roupret M, van den Bergh R, Renard-Penna R . The current role of MRI for guiding active surveillance in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2022; 19(6):357-365. DOI: 10.1038/s41585-022-00587-0. View

16.

Martini A, Soeterik T, Haverdings H, Rahota R, Checcucci E, De Cillis S . An Algorithm to Personalize Nerve Sparing in Men with Unilateral High-Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2021; 207(2):350-357. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002205. View

17.

Mazzone E, Gandaglia G, Ploussard G, Marra G, Valerio M, Campi R . Risk Stratification of Patients Candidate to Radical Prostatectomy Based on Clinical and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameters: Development and External Validation of Novel Risk Groups. Eur Urol. 2021; 81(2):193-203. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.07.027. View

18.

Morash C, Tey R, Agbassi C, Klotz L, McGowan T, Srigley J . Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: Guideline recommendations. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015; 9(5-6):171-8. PMC: 4479637. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.2806. View

19.

Courtney P, Deka R, Kotha N, Cherry D, Salans M, Nelson T . Metastasis and Mortality in Men With Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022; 20(2):151-159. PMC: 10399925. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.7065. View

20.

Davison B, Goldenberg S . Patient acceptance of active surveillance as a treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2011; 108(11):1787-93. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10200.x. View