Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE Active surveillance is increasingly accepted as a treatment option for favorable-risk prostate cancer. Long-term follow-up has been lacking. In this study, we report the long-term outcome of a large active surveillance protocol in men with favorable-risk prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS In a prospective single-arm cohort study carried out at a single academic health sciences center, 993 men with favorable- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were managed with an initial expectant approach. Intervention was offered for a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of less than 3 years, Gleason score progression, or unequivocal clinical progression. Main outcome measures were overall and disease-specific survival, rate of treatment, and PSA failure rate in the treated patients. RESULTS Among the 819 survivors, the median follow-up time from the first biopsy is 6.4 years (range, 0.2 to 19.8 years). One hundred forty-nine (15%) of 993 patients died, and 844 patients are alive (censored rate, 85.0%). There were 15 deaths (1.5%) from prostate cancer. The 10- and 15-year actuarial cause-specific survival rates were 98.1% and 94.3%, respectively. An additional 13 patients (1.3%) developed metastatic disease and are alive with confirmed metastases (n = 9) or have died of other causes (n = 4). At 5, 10, and 15 years, 75.7%, 63.5%, and 55.0% of patients remained untreated and on surveillance. The cumulative hazard ratio for nonprostate-to-prostate cancer mortality was 9.2:1. CONCLUSION Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer is feasible and seems safe in the 15-year time frame. In our cohort, 2.8% of patients have developed metastatic disease, and 1.5% have died of prostate cancer. This mortality rate is consistent with expected mortality in favorable-risk patients managed with initial definitive intervention.

[1]  M. Terris,et al.  Outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men who are candidates for active surveillance: results from the SEARCH database. , 2008, Urology.

[2]  M. Remzi,et al.  The Vienna nomogram: validation of a novel biopsy strategy defining the optimal number of cores based on patient age and total prostate volume. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[3]  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.

[4]  Liying Zhang,et al.  Gleason Upgrading with Time in a Large Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohort. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[5]  Liying Zhang,et al.  Modeling prostate specific antigen kinetics in patients on active surveillance. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[6]  D. Lin Active surveillance for prostate cancers detected in three subsequent rounds of a screening trial: Characteristics, PSA doubling times, and outcome , 2007 .

[7]  Steve Williams,et al.  Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience , 2007, BJU international.

[8]  L. Klotz Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention: using natural history to guide treatment in good risk prostate cancer. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[9]  Alan Horwich,et al.  Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. , 2008, European urology.

[10]  K. Ali,et al.  PSA doubling time predicts the outcome after active surveillance in screening‐detected prostate cancer: Results from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, Sweden section , 2006 .

[11]  Neil Fleshner,et al.  Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[12]  Jennifer R. Rider,et al.  Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer: a final report from three decades of follow-up. , 2013, European urology.

[13]  B. Efron Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife , 1979 .

[14]  E. Metter,et al.  Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience , 2007 .

[15]  Liying Zhang,et al.  Comparing prostate specific antigen triggers for intervention in men with stable prostate cancer on active surveillance. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[16]  W. J. Morris,et al.  Randomized trial comparing two fractionation schedules for patients with localized prostate cancer. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  L. Klotz Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom? , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  Alexandre Mamedov,et al.  Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  Andrew J Vickers,et al.  Systematic review of pretreatment prostate-specific antigen velocity and doubling time as predictors for prostate cancer. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[20]  P. Carroll,et al.  20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer , 2005 .

[21]  D. G. Altman,et al.  Review of survival analyses published in cancer journals. , 1995, British Journal of Cancer.