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
3. Results
Two hundred thirty out of 250 patients met the criteria for AS (20 patients had not been followed for 12 mo). The mean age of the AS patients at diagnosis was 63.4 yr of age (median: 64; range: 42–79), with a mean PSA value of 5.07 ng/ml (median: 4.76). The mean follow-up for the cohort was 44 mo (median: 32; range: 12–208; Table 1).
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
Fifty percent of patients had no tumor on the first rebiopsy; 46% continued to have small-volume Gleason score 6 tumors. Six patients (2.5%) had Gleason grade 4, and three others had an increase in tumor volume. On the second rebiopsy, 15 patients had Gleason grade 4. On the third rebiopsy, three patients had Gleason grade 4. Five percent of patients who had no tumor in the first or second rebiopsy were treated, compared with 16.5% who had focal Gleason 6 on the first rebiopsy. There was no tumor in 49%, 52%, and 71% of the second, third, and fourth rebiopsies, respectively.
Of the 230 men in the AS cohort, 32 (14%) were treated over a mean follow-up of 33 mo (median: 31; range: 12–92). 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). The mean age at time of treatment was 68.5 yr of age (range: 44–84).
Twelve of the 32 treated patients had TP, 14 had interstitial or external-beam RT (EBRT), and 6 underwent hormone therapy (HT; Fig. 1). 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). The mean follow-up post-surgery was 30 mo (median: 35). None of the TP patients have had biochemical recurrence (BCR). No patient has died of PCa.
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
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
A Kaplan-Meier analysis predicted that 85.7% of the entire AS cohort would be free from treatment at 5 yr (Fig. 2). Logistic regression was performed to determine which variables best predict those patients who would likely not undergo treatment. PSA doubling time (PSA DT) and clinical stage were not predictors for treatment. Any tumor at the first rebiopsy was a predictor for treatment (p = 0.011; coefficient of 1.517).
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
The SHIM and ICI-SF were completed by 172 of 230 patients. On the ICI-SF, 30% of AS patients demonstrated some degree of incontinence; few were bothered by it (bother score >0). The mean initial and final ICI scores were not significantly different 1.16 and 1.1 respectively.
Forty-nine percent of patients had at least moderate erectile dysfunction (ED), as measured by the SHIM. The mean scores (initial mean score:14.2 [median: 17.50]; final mean score: 11.8 [median: 13]) also indicated moderate ED in the cohort at large. A paired-sample student t test analyzing the initial/last SHIM scores revealed that the last scores were significantly lower (p <0.001). The significant increase in ED was seen in three of four age groups (40–49; 50–59; 60–69; 70–79; Table 3). There was no significant difference in the mean age between patients with ED and patients with normal erectile function (p = 0.75).
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
AS patients with SHIM scores ≥21 (30%) and normal erectile function at diagnosis were studied to determine whether multiple TRUS biopsies had an effect on potency. The group's mean age was 58.57 yr of age (median: 58.50). Interestingly, over a mean follow-up of 35 mo (median: 28), there was a significant increase (p ≤ 0.001) in ED (mean: 23.65 to mean: 17.98) from the initial SHIM.
Our AS guidelines were met by 219 out of 2100 patients who initially had TP rather than selecting AS. Only 22% of these patients contained Gleason grade 4 or 5 in the surgical specimen. 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). There was no significant difference in the positive margin rate between initially treated patients and patients treated following AS (p = 0.52), EPE (p = 0.73), or SVI (p = 0.79).
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 ©