Prognostic Impact and Clinical Implications of Adverse Tumor Grade in Very Favorable Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Experience of a Single Tertiary Referral Center.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prognostic impact and predictors of adverse tumor grade in very favorable low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: Data of low- and intermediate PCa risk-class patients were retrieved from a prospectively maintained institutional database. Adverse tumor grade was defined as pathology ISUP grade group > 2. Disease progression was defined as a biochemical recurrence event and/or local recurrence and/or distant metastases. Associations were assessed by Cox's proportional hazards and logistic regression model. RESULTS: Between January 2013 and October 2020, the study evaluated a population of 289 patients, including 178 low-risk cases (61.1%) and 111 intermediate-risk subjects (38.4%); unfavorable tumor grade was detected in 82 cases (28.4%). PCa progression, which occurred in 29 patients (10%), was independently predicted by adverse tumor grade and biopsy ISUP grade group 2, with the former showing stronger associations (hazard ratio, HR = 4.478; 95% CI: 1.840-10.895; p = 0.001) than the latter (HR = 2.336; 95% CI: 1.057-5.164; p = 0.036). Older age and biopsy ISUP grade group 2 were independent clinical predictors of adverse tumor grade, associated with larger tumors that eventually presented non-organ-confined disease. CONCLUSIONS: In a very favorable PCa patient population, adverse tumor grade was an unfavorable prognostic factor for disease progression. Active surveillance in very favorable intermediate-risk patients is still a hazard, so molecular and genetic testing of biopsy specimens is needed.

The association between patient and disease characteristics, and the risk of disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to identify and assess patient and disease characteristics associated with an increased risk of disease progression in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. METHODS: We studied patients with low-risk (ISUP GG1) or favorable intermediate-risk (ISUP GG2) PCa. All patients had at least one repeat biopsy. Disease progression was the primary outcome of this study, based on pathological upgrading. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to evaluate the association between covariates and disease progression. RESULTS: In total, 240 men were included, of whom 198 (82.5%) were diagnosed with low-risk PCa and 42 (17.5%) with favorable intermediate-risk PCa. Disease progression was observed in 42.9% (103/240) of men. Index lesion > 10 mm (HR = 2.85; 95% CI 1.74-4.68; p < 0.001), MRI (m)T-stage 2b/2c (HR = 2.52; 95% CI 1.16-5.50; p = 0.02), highest PI-RADS score of 5 (HR 3.05; 95% CI 1.48-6.28; p = 0.002) and a higher PSA level (HR 1.06; 95% CI 1.01-1.11; p = 0.014) at baseline were associated with disease progression on univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed no significant baseline predictors of disease progression. CONCLUSION: In AS patients with low-risk or favorable intermediate-risk PCa, diameter of index lesion, MRI (m)T-stage, height of the PI-RADS score and the PSA level at baseline are significant predictors of disease progression to first repeat biopsy.

Determinants of active surveillance uptake in a diverse population-based cohort of men with low-risk prostate cancer: The Treatment Options in Prostate Cancer Study (TOPCS).

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred strategy for low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC); however, limited data on determinants of AS adoption exist, particularly among Black men. METHODS: Black and White newly diagnosed (from January 2014 through June 2017) patients with LRPC ≤75 years of age were identified through metro-Detroit and Georgia population-based cancer registries and completed a survey evaluating factors influencing AS uptake. RESULTS: Among 1688 study participants, 57% chose AS (51% of Black participants, 61% of White) over definitive treatment. In the unadjusted analysis, patient factors associated with initial AS uptake included older age, White race, and higher education. However, after adjusting for covariates, none of these factors was significant predictors of AS uptake. The strongest determinant of AS uptake was the AS recommendation by a urologist (adjusted prevalence ratio, 6.59, 95% CI, 4.84-8.97). Other factors associated with the decision to undergo AS included a shared patient-physician treatment decision, greater prostate cancer knowledge, and residence in metro-Detroit compared with Georgia. Conversely, men whose decision was strongly influenced by the desire to achieve "cure" or "live longer" with treatment and those who perceived their LRPC diagnosis as more serious were less likely to choose AS. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary sample, the majority of patients with newly diagnosed LRPC chose AS. Although the input from their urologists was highly influential, several patient decisional and psychological factors were independently associated with AS uptake. These data shed new light on potentially modifiable factors that can help further increase AS uptake among patients with LRPC.

Co-designing an online treatment decision aid for men with low-risk prostate cancer: Navigate.

Objectives: To develop an online treatment decision aid (OTDA) to assist patients with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) and their partners in making treatment decisions. Patients and methods: Navigate, an OTDA for LRPC, was rigorously co-designed by patients with a confirmed diagnosis or at risk of LRPC and their partners, clinicians, researchers and website designers/developers. A theoretical model guided the development process. A mixed methods approach was used incorporating (1) evidence for essential design elements for OTDAs; (2) evidence for treatment options for LRPC; (3) an iterative co-design process involving stakeholder workshops and prototype review; and (4) expert rating using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Three co-design workshops with potential users (n = 12) and research and web-design team members (n = 10) were conducted. Results from each workshop informed OTDA modifications to the OTDA for testing in the subsequent workshop. Clinician (n = 6) and consumer (n = 9) feedback on usability and content on the penultimate version was collected. Results: The initial workshops identified key content and design features that were incorporated into the draft OTDA, re-workshopped and incorporated into the penultimate OTDA. Expert feedback on usability and content was also incorporated into the final OTDA. The final OTDA was deemed comprehensive, clear and appropriate and met all IPDAS criteria. Conclusion: Navigate is an interactive and acceptable OTDA for Australian men with LRPC designed by men for men using a co-design methodology. The effectiveness of Navigate in assisting patient decision-making is currently being assessed in a randomised controlled trial with patients with LRPC and their partners.

Gallium-68 Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer Trial (PASPoRT).

BACKGROUND: The use of clinical parameters, including prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to decide between active surveillance (AS) and active therapy for prostate cancer (PCa) leads to imperfect selection. Additional prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging may improve risk stratification. OBJECTIVE: To study risk stratification and patient selection for AS with the addition of PSMA PET/CT to standard practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A single-centre prospective cohort study (NL69880.100.19) enrolled patients recently diagnosed with PCa who started AS. At diagnosis, all participants had undergone prebiopsy MRI and targeted biopsy for visualised lesions. Patients underwent an additional [68Ga]-PSMA PET/CT and targeted biopsy of all PSMA lesions with a maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) of ≥4 not covered by previous biopsies. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the number needed to scan (NNS) to detect one patient with upgrading. The study was powered to detect an NNS of 10. Regarding secondary outcomes, univariate logistic regressions analyses were performed on all patients and on the patients who received additional PSMA targeted biopsies on the likelihood of upgrading. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 141 patients were included. Additional PSMA targeted biopsies were performed in 45 (32%) patients. In 13 (9%) patients, upgrading was detected: nine grade group (GG) 2, two GG 3, one GG 4, and one GG 5. The NNS was 11 (95% confidence interval 6-18). Of all participants, PSMA PET/CT and targeted biopsies yielded upgrading most frequently in patients with negative MRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] 1-2). Of patients who received additional PSMA targeted biopsies, upgrading was most frequently found in those with higher prostate-specific antigen density and negative MRI. Limitations included the lack of comparison with standard repeat biopsy, no central review of MRI, and possibility of biopsy sampling error. CONCLUSIONS: PSMA PET/CT can further improve PCa risk stratification and selection for AS patients diagnosed after MRI and targeted biopsies. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography and additional targeted prostate biopsies can identify more aggressive prostate cancer cases previously missed in patients recently started with expectant management for favourable-risk prostate cancer.

Patient and physician perspectives on treatments for low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are confronted with a difficult decision regarding whether to undergo definitive treatment or to pursue an active surveillance protocol. This is potentially further complicated by the possibility that patients and physicians may place different value on factors that influence this decision. We conducted a qualitative investigation to better understand patient and physician perceptions of factors influencing treatment decisions for low-risk PCa. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 43 racially and ethnically diverse patients diagnosed with low-risk PCa, who were identified through a population-based cancer registry, and 15 physicians who were selected to represent a variety of practice settings in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. RESULTS: Patients and physicians both described several key individual (e.g., clinical) and interpersonal (e.g., healthcare communications) factors as important for treatment decision-making. Overall, physicians' perceptions largely mirrored patients' perceptions. First, we observed differences in treatment preferences by age and stage of life. At older ages, there was a preference for less invasive options. However, at younger ages, we found varying opinions among both patients and physicians. Second, patients and physicians both described concerns about side effects including physical functioning and non-physical considerations. Third, we observed differences in expectations and the level of difficulty for clinical conversations based on information needs and resources between patients and physicians. Finally, we discovered that patients and physicians perceived patients' prior knowledge and the support of family/friends as facilitators of clinical conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the gap between patient and physician perceptions on the influence of clinical and communication factors on treatment decision-making is not large. The consensus we observed points to the importance of developing relevant clinical communication roadmaps as well as high quality and accessible patient education materials.

Long-term Outcomes from a Phase 1 Dose Escalation Study Using Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Patients with Low- or Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Ultrahypofractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become a standard treatment intervention for localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To report final long-term tumor control outcomes and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities from a single-center phase 1 dose escalation study using SBRT for patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Between 2009 and 2012, 136 patients were enrolled and treated. The initial dose level was 32.5 Gy in five fractions. Doses were then sequentially escalated to 35 Gy, 37.5 Gy, and 40 Gy in five fractions delivered every other day. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was late treatment-related toxicity. Secondary endpoints included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median follow-up was 10.5 yr for the 32.5-Gy group, 9.9 yr for the 35-Gy group, 8.2 yr for the 37.5-Gy group, and 7.3 yr for the 40-Gy group. The 8-yr cumulative incidence of PSA failure was 26% for 32.5 Gy, 15% for 35 Gy, 3.4% for 37.5 Gy, and 6.6% for 40 Gy. Higher radiation dose (37.5-40 Gy) and favorable intermediate risk (vs unfavorable intermediate risk) were associated with better PSA recurrence rates (p = 0.011 and 0.002, respectively). The 8-yr actuarial probability rates for survival free from late grade ≥2 toxicity were 94% for GI toxicity and 86% for GU toxicity. No grade 4 events were recorded. Higher dose levels were not associated with higher rates of late grade ≥2 GI (p = 0.2) or GU (p > 0.9) toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT doses ranging from 32.5 to 40 Gy were associated with low incidence of moderate or severe toxicities. Higher doses resulted in superior disease control outcomes 8 yr after treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated the association between the radiotherapy dose used and the rate of control of prostate cancer. We found that higher doses resulted in more favorable outcomes without excess toxicity. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00911118.

Aggressive Prostate Cancer in Patients Treated with Active Surveillance.

Active surveillance has emerged as a promising approach for managing low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC), with the aim of minimizing overtreatment and maintaining the quality of life. However, concerns remain about identifying "aggressive prostate cancer" within the active surveillance cohort, which refers to cancers with a higher potential for progression. Previous studies are predictors of aggressive PC during active surveillance. To address this, a personalized risk-based follow-up approach that integrates clinical data, biomarkers, and genetic factors using risk calculators was proposed. This approach enables an efficient risk assessment and the early detection of disease progression, minimizes unnecessary interventions, and improves patient management and outcomes. As active surveillance indications expand, the importance of identifying aggressive PC through a personalized risk-based follow-up is expected to increase.

Value of Prostate-Specific Antigen Kinetics in Patients with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer under Active Surveillance.

INTRODUCTION: This study analyzes the value of PSA kinetics, PSA speed (vPSA), and PSA doubling time (PSAdt), in patients with low-risk prostate cancer who are in an active surveillance (AS) program. METHODS: An observational, retrospective, and longitudinal study of a sample of 86 patients included in AS program between January 2014 and October 2021 was conducted. A review of their medical records was performed, and PSA kinetics were calculated, analyzing the causes of discontinuation of the AS program and its relationship with PSA kinetics. RESULTS: The mean age was 63.39 years, and the median follow-up was 62.55 months. The mean PSA at diagnosis was 8.27 ng/mL. A median of PSAdt of 62.55 months and 1.3 ng/mL/year for vPSA was obtained. 35 patients left the program, with a higher percentage of patients leaving with a PSAdt less than 36 months (73.7 vs. 31.1%) and a vPSA greater than 2 ng/mL/year (68.2 vs. 31.3%). The probability of permanence and the time of permanence in AS were statistically significantly higher for those patients with favorable kinetic parameters. CONCLUSION: PSA kinetics is a parameter to take into account when making decisions to keep patients in an AS program.

Comparison of Outcomes of Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Versus Low-Risk Localised Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Currently, there is no clear consensus regarding the role of active surveillance (AS) in the management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC) patients. We aim to analyse data from the available literature on the outcomes of AS in the management of IRPC patients and compare them with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) patients. A comprehensive literature search was performed, and relevant data were extracted. Our primary outcome was treatment-free survival, and secondary outcomes were metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. The DerSimonian-Laird random-effects method was used for the meta-analysis. Out of 712 studies identified following an initial search, 25 studies were included in the systematic review. We found that both IRPC and LRPC patients had nearly similar 5, 10, and 15 year treatment-free survival rate, 5 and 10 year metastasis-free survival rate, and 5 year overall survival rate. However, cancer-specific survival rates at 5, 10, and 15 years were significantly lower in IRPC compared to LRPC group. Furthermore, IRPC patients had significantly inferior long-term overall survival rate (10 and 15 year) and metastasis-free survival rate (15 year) compared to LRPC patients. Both the clinicians and the patients can consider this information during the informed decision-making process before choosing AS.

The prognostic nomogram for PSA-incongruent low-risk prostate cancer treated by radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To establish a prognostic nomogram for PSA-incongruent low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients (Gleason score 6 and clinical stage T2a) at diagnosis and treated with radical prostatectomy (RP), based on clinical and pathological metrics. METHODS: In total, 217 patients diagnosed with PCa were included in this study. All patients had a Gleason score of 6 (GS6) in biopsy, had clinical T2a before surgery and were treated with RP. Biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine prognostic factors related to bPFS. A prognostic nomogram was established based on factors that were significant in the multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The median bPFS had a significant difference in the subgroup of PSA at diagnosis (' < 10 ng/mL': 71.698 [67.549-75.847] vs '10-20 ng/mL': 71.038 [66.220-75.857] vs ' ≥ 20 ng/mL': 26.746 [12.384-41.108] months [Log Rank P < 0.001]), the subgroup of T stage upgrade (Negative: 70.016 [65.846-74.187] vs 'T2b/c': 69.183 [63.544-74.822] vs 'T3/4': 32.235 [11.877-52.593] months [Log Rank P < 0.001]) and the subgroup of Gleason score upgrade (Negative: 72.63 [69.096-76.163] vs '3 + 4': 68.393 [62.243-74.543] vs '4 + 3': 41.427 [27.517-55.336] vs ' ≥ 8': 28.291 [7.527-49.055] [Log Rank P < 0.001]). PSA at diagnoses (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.027, 95% CI 1.015-1.039, P < 0.001), T stage upgrade (HR 2.116, 95% CI 1.083-4.133, P = 0.028), and Gleason score upgrade (HR 2.831, 95% CI 1.892-4.237, P < 0.001) were identified as independent predictors with significance in multivariable Cox regression analysis. A nomogram was established based on these three factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated that PSA-incongruent low-risk PCa patients (PSA with 10-20 ng/mL) had a similar prognosis to those with real low-risk PCa (PSA < 10 ng/mL) in the D' Amico criteria. We also established a nomogram based on three significant prognostic factors, including PSA at diagnosis, T stage upgrade, and Gleason score upgrade, which were associated with clinical outcomes in prostate cancer patients with GS6 and T2a after surgery.

Modern Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: A Narrative Review.

The use of PSA screening has led to downstaging and downgrading of prostate cancer at diagnosis, increasing detection of indolent disease. Active surveillance aims to reduce over-treatment by delaying or avoiding radical treatment and its associated morbidity. However, there is not a consensus on the selection criteria and monitoring schedules that should be used. This article aims to summarize the evidence supporting the safety of active surveillance, the current selection criteria recommended and in use, the incidence of active surveillance, barriers existing to its uptake and future developments in patient selection.

Influence of Active Surveillance on Gleason Score Upgrade and Prognosis in Low- and Favorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Few studies have focused on the link between active surveillance (AS) and Gleason score upgrade (GSU) and its impact on the prognosis of patients with prostate cancer (PCa). This study aimed to analyze the effect of AS duration on GSU and prognostic value based on risk stratification. All eligible patients were risk-stratified according to AUA guidelines into low-risk (LR), favorable intermediate-risk (FIR), and unfavorable intermediate-risk (UIR) PCa. Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database, 28,368 LR, 27,243 FIR, and 12,210 UIR PCa patients were included. The relationship between AS duration and GSU was identified with univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Discrimination according to risk stratification of AS duration and GSU was tested by Kaplan-Meier analysis and competing risk regression models. The proportion of patients who chose AS was the highest among LR PCa (3434, 12.1%), while the proportion in UIR PCa was the lowest (887, 7.3%). The AS duration was only associated with GSU in LR PCa, with a high Gleason score (GS) at diagnosis being a strong predictor of GSU for FIR and UIR PCa. Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that long-term surveillance only made a significant difference in prognosis in UIR PCa. The competing risk analysis indicated that once GS was upgraded to 8 or above, the prognosis in each group was significantly worse. AS is recommended for LR and FIR PCa until GS is upgraded to 8, but AS may not be suitable for some UIR PCa patients.

Association Between Receipt of Definitive Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer and Adverse Health Outcomes: A Claims-Based Approach.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine adverse health outcomes associated with receipt of definitive treatments (prostatectomy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy [IMRT] and brachytherapy). METHODS: We identified men aged 65 years and older who received a new diagnosis of localized prostate cancer from 4 state cancer registries (CA, FL, NJ, and TX) during the years 2006 to 2013. We merged the registry records for this cohort with Medicare enrollment and claims. We constructed indicators of treatment-related adverse outcomes using diagnosis codes reported on the claims. Stage 1 models the choice of definitive treatment versus active surveillance. Stage 2 examines the probability of experiencing a treatment-related adverse health outcome among men who chose definitive treatment. RESULTS: Notably, 81.4% of our cohort of 61 187 men received definitive treatment whereas 18.6% were monitored with active surveillance. The 5-year prostate cancer death rate was 0.28% to 1.75% irrespective of treatment received. Men monitored with active surveillance experienced minimal adverse health outcomes (0.16%-0.75%). The risks of urinary incontinence associated with prostatectomy were 31 and 39.5 percentage points higher than brachytherapy and IMRT, respectively. For erectile dysfunction, the risks were nearly 23 and 27.5 percentage points higher, respectively, than brachytherapy and IMRT. Prostatectomy was associated with lower risk of urinary dysfunction and bowel dysfunction than either brachytherapy or IMRT. Compared with brachytherapy, IMRT was associated with a lower risk of erectile dysfunction (32%), urinary incontinence (84%), and urinary dysfunction (30%). CONCLUSIONS: This evidence should be of value to patient-physician decision making regarding the choice of definitive treatments versus active surveillance for men with localized disease.

Psychological predictors of delayed active treatment following active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: The Patient REported outcomes for Prostate cARE prospective cohort study.

Objectives: In a prospective, comparative effectiveness study, we assessed clinical and psychological factors associated with switching from active surveillance (AS) to active treatment (AT) among low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Methods: Using ultra-rapid case identification, we conducted pretreatment telephone interviews (N = 1139) with low-risk patients (PSA ≤ 10, Gleason≤6) and follow-up interviews 6-10 months post-diagnosis (N = 1057). Among men remaining on AS for at least 12 months (N = 601), we compared those who continued on AS (N = 515) versus men who underwent delayed AT (N = 86) between 13 and 24 months, using Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Delayed AT was predicted by time dependent PSA levels (≥10 vs. <10; HR = 5.6, 95% CI 2.4-13.1) and Gleason scores (≥7 vs. ≤6; adjusted HR = 20.2, 95% CI 12.2-33.4). Further, delayed AT was more likely among men whose urologist initially recommended AT (HR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.07-4.22), for whom tumour removal was very important (HR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.35-3.52), and who reported greater worry about not detecting disease progression early (HR = 1.67, 1.05-2.65). In exploratory analyses, 31% (27/86) switched to AT without evidence of progression, while 4.7% (24/515) remained on AS with evidence of progression. Conclusions: After adjusting for clinical evidence of disease progression over the first year post-diagnosis, we found that urologists' initial treatment recommendation and patients' early treatment preferences and concerns about AS each independently predicted undergoing delayed AT during the second year post-diagnosis. These findings, along with almost one-half undergoing delayed AT without evidence of progression, suggest the need for greater decision support to remain on AS when it is clinically indicated.

Satisfaction with Nurse-led Follow-up in Prostate Cancer Patients-A Nationwide Population-based Study.

Background: Satisfaction with nurse-led follow-up among men with prostate cancer is high. However, it is unclear whether all men are satisfied or whether there are men who would benefit from being followed by a urologist or a nurse. Objective: To investigate the follow-up distribution between urologists and nurses, and whether the high self-reported satisfaction with nurse-led follow-up is independent of other factors such as age or comorbidity.Design, setting, and participants:All Swedish men, ≤70 yr of age, with a low-risk prostate cancer diagnosis in 2008, answered a questionnaire 7 yr after diagnosis. The extensive questionnaire included a question on satisfaction with care, answered on a seven-point scale. Participants were divided based on whether they were followed up by a nurse, a urologist, or both.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis:Factors that could influence the level of satisfaction were identified as age, education, comorbidity, treatment, disease progression, urinary bother, level of information, and participation in treatment decision. Likelihood ratio tests from ordinal regression were used to test the null hypothesis of similar satisfaction between groups. Results and limitations: Out of 1288 men, 1137 (88%) answered both the question on who performed the follow-up and the question regarding satisfaction. In all, 350 men reported that they were followed up by nurses (31%), 598 (52%) by urologists, and 189 (17%) by both. No differences in satisfaction where seen between the groups. Approximately 50% were satisfied completely, regardless of who performed the follow-up. Results were not affected by age, educational level, comorbidity, treatment, disease progression, urinary bother, information, or participation in treatment decision. Limitations include the nonrandomized, retrospective design and a potential recall bias. Conclusions: Satisfaction with nurse-led follow-up is high, regardless of factors such as age, level of education, comorbidity, and treatment. Patient summary: Men with prostate cancer can be offered nurse-led follow-up on a regular basis and still maintain their satisfaction with health care.

The comparison of survival between active surveillance or watchful waiting and focal laser ablation in patients with low-risk prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second-most common cancer among men. Both active surveillance or watchful waiting (AS/WW) and focal laser ablation (FLA) can avoid the complications caused by radical treatment. How to make the choice between these options in clinical practice needs further study. Therefore, this study aims to compare and analyze their effects based on overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) to obtain better long-term benefits. We included patients with low-risk PCa from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database of 2010-2016. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were conducted for OS and CSS in the two groups. To eliminate bias, this study applied a series of sensitivity analyses. Moreover, Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to obtain survival status. A total of 18 841 patients with low-risk PCa were included, with a median of 36-month follow-up. According to the multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression, the FLA group presented inferior survival benefits in OS than the AS/WW group (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.37-3.33, P < 0.05). After adjusting for confounders, the result persisted (HR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.02-2.81, P < 0.05). According to the results of the sensitivity analysis, the inverse probability of the treatment weighing model indicated the same result in OS. In conclusion, AS/WW and FLA have the advantage of fewer side effects and the benefit of avoiding overtreatment compared with standard treatment. Our study suggested that AS/WW provides more survival benefits for patients with low-risk PCa. More relevant researches and data will be needed for further clarity.

[Deferred prostatectomy after active surveillance-results from a single center]. / Verzögerte Prostatektomie nach Active Surveillance ­ eine prospektive Patientenbeobachtung.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up during Active Surveillance (AS) may result in psychological burden and discomfort due to the constant clinical monitoring. Therefore, successful implementation of AS is to some extent a challenge for the patient and the caregiver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this monocentric study, we analyzed the reasons for termination of AS and the rate of the postoperative adverse pathology (AP) in patients who underwent deferred radical prostatectomy (RP) after AS. These results were compared with AS candidates who underwent immediate RP. P-values were calculated with the Χ2 test. RESULTS: After 21 months of follow-up during AS, a deferred RP was performed in 74 patients. On the other hand, 214 patients underwent immediate RP. AP (Gleason score ≥7b, ≥pT3a, R1 and N+) was common in the AS group and this was statistically significant (45% vs. 29%, P-value <0.001). CONCLUSION: These findings reflect many deficits in the current AS protocols. Using the available tools to apply AS in the routine clinical practice setting may be not adequate to afford oncological safety. This requires the development of new diagnostic tools like new imaging techniques and innovative biomarkers that provide the clinician with more accurate data about disease progression and subsequent help to achieve better outcomes in active surveillance candidates.

The comparison of survival between active surveillance or watchful waiting and focal therapy for low-risk prostate cancer: a real-world study from the SEER database.

To reduce treatment-related side effects in low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), both focal therapy and deferred treatments, including active surveillance (AS) and watchful waiting (WW), are worth considering over radical prostatectomy (RP). Therefore, this study aimed to compare long-term survival outcomes between focal therapy and AS/WW. Data were obtained and analyzed from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patients with low-risk PCa who received focal therapy or AS/WW from 2010 to 2016 were included. Focal therapy included cryotherapy and laser ablation. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare overall mortality (OM) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) between AS/WW and focal therapy, and propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce the influence of bias and unmeasured confounders. A total of 19 292 patients with low-risk PCa were included in this study. In multivariate Cox proportional hazards model analysis, the risk of OM was higher in patients receiving focal therapy than those receiving AS/WW (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.79, P = 0.037), whereas no significant difference was found in CSM (HR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.23-4.11, P = 0.977). After PSM, the OM and CSM of focal therapy and AS/WW showed no significant differences (HR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.92-1.74, P = 0.149; and HR = 1.26, 95% CI: 0.24-6.51, P = 0.782, respectively). For patients with low-risk PCa, focal therapy was no match for AS/WW in decreasing OM, suggesting that AS/WW could bring more overall survival benefits.