Evaluation of predictors of unfavorable pathological features in men eligible for active surveillance using radical prostatectomy specimens: a multi-institutional study.

OBJECTIVE Active surveillance has emerged as an alternative to immediate treatment in men with favorable-risk prostate cancer; however, consensus about defining the appropriate candidates is still lacking. To examine the factors predicting unfavorable pathology among active surveillance candidates, we assessed low-risk radical prostatectomy specimens. METHODS This retrospective study included 1753 men who had undergone radical prostatectomy at six independent institutions in Japan from 2005 to 2011. Patients who met the active surveillance criteria were categorized depending on the pathological features of the radical prostatectomy specimens. 'Reclassification' was defined as upstaging (≥pT3) or upgrading (radical prostatectomy Gleason score ≥7), and 'adverse pathology' was defined as pathological stage ≥pT3 or radical prostatectomy Gleason score ≥4 + 3. Multivariate analysis was used to analyze the preoperative factors for reclassification and adverse pathology. The rates of reclassification and adverse pathology were evaluated by classifying patients according to biopsy core numbers. RESULTS The active surveillance criteria were met by 284 cases. Reclassification was identified in 154 (54.2%) cases, while adverse pathology in 60 (21.1%) cases. Prostate-specific antigen density and percentage of positive cores were independently associated with reclassification and adverse pathology. The rates of reclassification and adverse pathology were significantly higher among patients with <10 biopsy cores than among others. Thus, focusing on 149 patients with ≥10 biopsy cores, prostate-specific antigen density was the only independent predictor of unfavorable pathological features. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis determines an optimal cut-off value of prostate-specific antigen density as 0.15 ng/ml2. CONCLUSIONS Prostate-specific antigen density is the most important predictor of unfavorable pathological features in active surveillance candidates.

[1]  J. Tosoian,et al.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice , 2016, Nature Reviews Urology.

[2]  P. Carroll,et al.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines , 2016, Nature Reviews Urology.

[3]  Mufaddal Mamawala,et al.  Intermediate and Longer-Term Outcomes From a Prospective Active-Surveillance Program for Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  T. Choueiri,et al.  Incidence and Predictors of Upgrading and Up Staging among 10,000 Contemporary Patients with Low Risk Prostate Cancer. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[5]  S. Egawa,et al.  Should inclusion criteria for active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer be more stringent? From an interim analysis of PRIAS-JAPAN , 2015, World Journal of Urology.

[6]  A. Hayen,et al.  Medium‐term oncological outcomes for extended vs saturation biopsy and transrectal vs transperineal biopsy in active surveillance for prostate cancer , 2015, BJU international.

[7]  F. Montorsi,et al.  What is the optimal definition of misclassification in patients with very low-risk prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance? Results from a multi-institutional series. , 2015, Urologic oncology.

[8]  Kirsten L. Greene,et al.  Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[9]  Danny Vesprini,et al.  Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  J. Brooks,et al.  Higher rates of upgrading and upstaging in older patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and qualifying for active surveillance , 2014, BJU international.

[11]  H. Akaza,et al.  Recent trends in the initial therapy for newly diagnosed prostate cancer in Japan. , 2014, Japanese journal of clinical oncology.

[12]  A. Matsubara,et al.  Prostate cancer detection by prostate-specific antigen-based screening in the Japanese Hiroshima area shows early stage, low-grade, and low rate of cancer-specific death compared with clinical detection. , 2014, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.

[13]  T. Matsuda,et al.  Pathological outcomes of Japanese men eligible for active surveillance after radical prostatectomy , 2014, International Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  D. Dearnaley,et al.  Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. , 2013, European urology.

[15]  P. Choyke,et al.  Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer , 2013, Cancer.

[16]  Alan W Partin,et al.  Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system , 2013, BJU international.

[17]  M. Roobol,et al.  Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. , 2013, European urology.

[18]  Hiroshi Nishimoto,et al.  Cancer incidence and incidence rates in Japan in 2007: a study of 21 population-based cancer registries for the Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ) project. , 2013, Japanese journal of clinical oncology.

[19]  K. Brasso,et al.  Active surveillance can reduce overtreatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. , 2013, Danish medical journal.

[20]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. , 2012, European urology.

[21]  H. Hricak,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[22]  Neil Fleshner,et al.  Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[23]  Y. Homma,et al.  Oncological outcomes of the prostate cancer patients registered in 2004: Report from the Cancer Registration Committee of the JUA , 2011, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[24]  J. Epstein.  Prognostic significance of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy specimens. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[25]  M. Soloway,et al.  Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. , 2010, European urology.

[26]  W. Kassouf,et al.  Relationship between initial PSA density with future PSA kinetics and repeat biopsies in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance , 2010, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[27]  H. Welch,et al.  Overdiagnosis in cancer. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[28]  B. Lane,et al.  Staging saturation biopsy in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance protocol. , 2008, Urology.

[29]  J. Lloreta,et al.  The relationship between tumor volume and the number of positive cores in men undergoing multisite extended biopsy: implication for expectant management. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[30]  A. Vickers,et al.  Adverse Pathologic Features at Radical Prostatectomy: Effect of Preoperative Risk on Oncologic Outcomes. , 2016, European urology.

[31]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. , 2014, European urology.

[32]  J. Hugosson,et al.  Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. , 2013, European urology.