Journal Article Page
Jump to
European Urology
Volume 58, issue 6, pages e53-e62, December 2010Prostate Cancer
Careful Selection and Close Monitoring of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance Minimizes the Need for Treatment
00758-X/assets/eulogo1.jpg)
Accepted 12 August 2010, Published online 20 August 2010, pages 831 - 835
Abstract Full Text Full-Text PDF (176 KB) Create Platinum Slide Series
Fig. 1 Outcome of treated active surveillance patients with total prostatectomy (TP) versus initially treated TP patients.AS = active surveillance; LHRH = luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone; EBRT = external-beam radiation therapy; TP = total prostatectomy; EPE = extraprostatic extension; SVI = seminal vesical invasion; BCR = biochemical recurrence; PCa = prostate cancer.
References in context
-
Twelve of the 32 treated patients had TP, 14 had interstitial or external-beam RT (EBRT), and 6 underwent hormone therapy (HT; Fig. 1).
Go to context -
In the 219 patients, 59 (27%) had a positive margin, 17 (7.5%) had extraprostatic extension (EPE), and 4 (2%) had seminal vesicle invasion (SVI; Fig. 1).
Go to context -
All patients were free of SVI, and one patient had EPE (Fig. 1).
Go to context
Fig. 2 Kaplan-Meier treatment-free survival curve.
References in context
-
A Kaplan-Meier analysis predicted that 85.7% of the entire AS cohort would be free from treatment at 5 yr (Fig. 2).
Go to context
Table 1 Demographics of the active surveillance (AS) cohort versus treated AS patients
| AS cohort | Treated AS patients | |
|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | 230 | 32 |
| Age at diagnosis, yr | Mean: 63.4 | Mean: 65.3 |
| Median: 64 | Median: 68 | |
| Range: 42–79 | ||
| PSA at diagnosis, ng/ml | Mean: 5.07 | Mean: 5.66 |
| Median: 4.80 | Median: 5.14 | |
| Length of follow-up, mo | Mean: 44 | Mean: 33 |
| Median: 35 | Median: 31 | |
| Range: 12–208 | Range: 12–92 | |
| Age at Tx, yr | N/A | Mean: 68.5 |
| Median: 70 | ||
| Range: 44–84 | ||
| First SHIM score | Mean: 14.2 | Mean: 16.9 |
| Median: 17.5 | Median: 21.5 | |
| Last SHIM score | Mean: 11.8 | Mean: 14.23 (before Tx) |
| Median: 13 | Median: 20 |
AS = active surveillance; PSA = prostate-specific antigen; Tx = treatment; N/A = not available; SHIM = Sexual Health Inventory for Men.
References in context
-
The mean follow-up for the cohort was 44 mo (median: 32; range: 12–208; Table 1).
Go to context -
The mean age of the treated population at diagnosis was 65.3 yr of age; the mean PSA level (at diagnosis) was 5.66 ng/ml (Table 1).
Go to context
Table 2 Results following total prostatectomy of treated active surveillance patients
| Gleason score at Tx | Volume, % | EPE | SVI | Margin | BCR | Follow-up, mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 + 4 | 15 | − | − | + | − | 37 |
| 3 + 4 | 16 | − | − | − | − | 24 |
| 3 + 3 | 1.5 | − | − | + | − | 37 |
| 3 + 3 | 6 | − | − | − | − | 37 |
| 3 + 4 | 3 | − | − | − | − | 32 |
| 3 + 3 | 2.5 | − | − | − | − | 47 |
| 4 + 3 | 6+ | − | − | − | − | 32 |
| 3 + 4 | 20 | + | − | − | − | 16 |
| 3 + 4 | 10 | − | − | − | − | 29 |
| 4 + 4 | 1 | − | − | − | − | 20 |
| 3 + 5 | 15 | − | − | − | − | 2 |
| 3 + 4 | − | − | − | + | − | 2 |
Tx = treatment; EPE = extraprostatic extension; SVI = seminal vesical invasion; BCR = biochemical recurrence.
References in context
-
Seven patients treated with TP had Gleason score 3+4 or 4+3 on the TP specimen; two had Gleason score 3+5 or 4+4 (Table 2).
Go to context
Table 3 Decline in erectile function in different age groups
| Age group, yr | No. | p value (first SHIM/last SHIM) | Follow-up, mo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group I: 40–49 | 12 | p ≤ 0.019 (20/11.2) | Mean: 36 |
| Median: 27 | |||
| Group II: 50–59 | 41 | p = 0.376 (18.1/17) | Mean: 42 |
| Median: 30.5 | |||
| Group III: 60–69 | 65 | p ≤ 0.10 (13.5/10.7) | Mean: 40.6 |
| Median: 31.50 | |||
| Group IV: 70–79 | 19 | p ≤ 0.032 (12.2/9.2) | Mean: 47 |
| Median: 38.05 |
SHIM = Sexual Health Inventory for Men.
References in context
-
The significant increase in ED was seen in three of four age groups (40–49; 50–59; 60–69; 70–79; Table 3).
Go to context -
The median follow-up was <3 yr; thus, age may not be the significant factor that affects ED in this AS cohort (Table 3).
Go to context
Article information
PII: S0302-2838(10)00758-X
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.027
© 2010 European Association of Urology, Published by Elsevier B.V.
Recommend this article
Currently this article has a rating of 0. Please log in to recommend it.
Copyright ©