Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Factors Determining Change to Radical Treatment in Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer

Simpkin, Andrew; Tilling, Kate; Martin, Richard M.; Lane, J. Athene; Hamdy, Freddie C.; Holmberg, Lars; Neal, David E.; Metcalfe, Chris; Donovan, Jenny

doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.004

Cited by 102 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Simpkin et al [19] reviewed 26 series in a recent meta-analysis, and identified that MRI was not used as a parameter for decision making in AS. The ability to image PCa accurately, and particularly the ability to exclude clinically significant disease with high probability, is a game changer [19]. Multiple investigators have evaluated MRI for PCa, as this modality offers advantages over other imaging modalities, including enhanced delineation of pelvic anatomy as well as the opportunity for functional assessment [2].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Role of Multi-Parametric Magnetic Resonance Image and PIRADS Score in Patients with Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance According PRIAS Criteria

Almeida

Petralia

Ferro³

et al. 2016

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the prognostic role of multiparametric-MRI (mp-MRI) in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) eligible for active surveillance (AS) according to Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria. Patients and Methods: We analyzed prospectively 73 patients with PCa and PRIAS criteria for low-risk disease. All patients fitted criteria for AS but optioned surgery treatment. The mp-MRI was performed to define the likelihood of malignancy according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score (1-5). Patients were divided in 2 groups: non-visible cancer lesion on MRI (PIRADS 2-3) and visible cancer (PIRADS 4-5). Preoperative clinical data (age, body mass index, prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, positive core biopsy, PSA density (PSAD)) and definitive pathological findings (staging, upgrading, unfavorable disease) were compared between groups. PIRADS score was correlated with pathological data to evaluate the prognostic role of mp-MRI; and preoperative variables and definitive pathology (upgrading, upstaging and unfavorable disease) were also assessed. Results: PSAD (p = 0.04) and pathological stage (p = 0.03) were significantly associated with the presence of visible disease. Visible disease was significantly associated with upstaging (p = 0.03). Correlation between PIRADS 5 and unfavorable disease was statistically significant (p = 0.02). The mp-MRI had adequate sensibility in detecting upstaging (92%), intermediate for upgrading (76%) and unfavorable disease (76%). Negative predictive value was higher for upstaging than for upgrading or unfavorable disease (96 vs. 68% and 64%). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that PIRADS 5 was a significant predictor of upstaging (p = 0.05, OR 16.12) and unfavorable disease (p = 0.01, OR 6.53). Conclusion: A visible lesion on mp-MRI strongly predicts significant PCa in patients eligible for AS according to PRIAS criteria, based on upstaging and unfavorable disease. We believe that mp-MRI is an important tool and should be added to clinical selection criteria for AS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of Multi-Parametric Magnetic Resonance Image and PIRADS Score in Patients with Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance According PRIAS Criteria

Almeida

Petralia

Ferro³

et al. 2016

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…24,25 However, there remains little consensus about the best protocols for following these patients safely, in order to maintain them in a "window of curability." 28 In the ProtecT active-monitoring group, almost half the men received no intervention during the 10-year follow-up period.…”

Section: -Year Outcomes In Localized Prostate Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

Hamdy

Donovan

Lane³

et al. 2016

N Engl J Med

Self Cite

2,289

1,725

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine n engl j med nejm.org This article was published on September 14, 2016, at NEJM.org. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220Copyright © 2016 Massachusetts Medical Society. BACKGROUNDThe comparative effectiveness of treatments for prostate cancer that is detected by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains uncertain. METHODSWe compared active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, and external-beam radiotherapy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Between 1999 and 2009, a total of 82,429 men 50 to 69 years of age received a PSA test; 2664 received a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer, and 1643 agreed to undergo randomization to active monitoring (545 men), surgery (553), or radiotherapy (545). The primary outcome was prostate-cancer mortality at a median of 10 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the rates of disease progression, metastases, and all-cause deaths. RESULTSThere were 17 prostate-cancer-specific deaths overall: 8 in the active-monitoring group (1.5 deaths per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7 to 3.0), 5 in the surgery group (0.9 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.4 to 2.2), and 4 in the radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.3 to 2.0); the difference among the groups was not significant (P = 0.48 for the overall comparison). In addition, no significant difference was seen among the groups in the number of deaths from any cause (169 deaths overall; P = 0.87 for the comparison among the three groups). Metastases developed in more men in the active-monitoring group (33 men; 6.3 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 4.5 to 8.8) than in the surgery group (13 men; 2.4 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.2) or the radiotherapy group (16 men; 3.0 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.9 to 4.9) (P = 0.004 for the overall comparison). Higher rates of disease progression were seen in the activemonitoring group (112 men; 22.9 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 19.0 to 27.5) than in the surgery group (46 men; 8.9 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.7 to 11.9) or the radiotherapy group (46 men; 9.0 events per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.7 to 12.0) (P<0.001 for the overall comparison). CONCLUSIONSAt a median of 10 years, prostate-cancer-specific mortality was low irrespective of the treatment assigned, with no significant difference among treatments. Surgery and radiotherapy were associated with lower incidences of disease progression and metastases than was active monitoring.

show abstract

“…However, some patients do still chose to undergo surgery due to personal choice, often related to the uncertainty associated with the diagnosis and the unknown risk of progression [5]. One would assume that low-risk tumours have a low risk of progression and metastasis; however, this is not always the case due to the varying genetic signature of the individual tumours.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Management dilemmas in low‐risk prostate cancer

Patel

Ganapathi

2016

BJU International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Factors Determining Change to Radical Treatment in Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer

Cited by 102 publications

References 50 publications

Role of Multi-Parametric Magnetic Resonance Image and PIRADS Score in Patients with Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance According PRIAS Criteria

Role of Multi-Parametric Magnetic Resonance Image and PIRADS Score in Patients with Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance According PRIAS Criteria

10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

Management dilemmas in low‐risk prostate cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About