Does Urologist-level Utilization of Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer Correspond with Utilization of Active Surveillance for Small Renal Masses?

Active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (CaP) or small renal masses (SRMs) helps in limiting the overtreatment of indolent malignancies. Implementation of AS for these conditions varies substantially across individual urologists. We examined the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry to assess for correlation of AS between patients with low-risk CaP and patients with SRM managed by individual urologists. We identified 27 urologists who treated at least ten patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk CaP and ten patients with SRMs between 2017 and 2021. For surgeons in the lowest quartile of AS use for low-risk CaP (<74%), 21% of their patients with SRMs were managed with AS, in comparison to 74% of patients of surgeons in the highest quartile (>90%). There was a modest positive correlation between the surgeon-level risk-adjusted proportions of patients managed with AS for low-risk CaP and for SRMs (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.48). A surgeon's tendency to use AS to manage one low-risk malignancy corresponds to their use of AS for a second low-risk condition. By identifying and correcting structural issues associated with underutilization of AS, interventions aimed at increasing AS use may have effects that influence clinical tendencies across a variety of urologic conditions. PATIENT SUMMARY: The use of active surveillance (AS) for patients with low-risk prostate cancer or small kidney masses varies greatly among individual urologists. Urologists who use AS for low-risk prostate cancer were more likely to use AS for patients with small kidney masses, but there is room to improve the use of AS for both of these conditions.

The Use and Short-term Outcomes of Active Surveillance in Men With National Comprehensive Cancer Network Favorable Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: The Initial Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Experience.

PURPOSE: National Comprehensive Cancer Network favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease with varied oncologic and survival outcomes. We describe the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative's experience with the use of active surveillance and the short-term oncologic outcomes for men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.Materials and Methods:We reviewed the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry for men diagnosed with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer from 2012-2020. The proportion of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance was calculated by year of diagnosis. For men selecting active surveillance, the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate treatment-free survival. To assess for the oncologic safety of active surveillance, we compared the proportion of patients with adverse pathology and biochemical recurrence-free survival between men undergoing delayed radical prostatectomy after a period of active surveillance with men undergoing immediate radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Of the 4,275 men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 1,321 (31%) were managed with active surveillance, increasing from 13% in 2012 to 45% in 2020. The 5-year treatment-free probability for men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance was 73% for Gleason Grade Group 1 and 57% for Grade Group 2 disease. More men undergoing a delayed radical prostatectomy had adverse pathology (46%) compared with immediate radical prostatectomy (32%, P < .001), yet short-term biochemical recurrence was similar between groups (log-rank test, P = .131). CONCLUSIONS: The use of active surveillance for men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer has increased markedly. Over half of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance remained free of treatment 5 years after diagnosis. Most men on active surveillance will not lose their window of cure and have similar short-term oncologic outcomes as men undergoing up-front treatment. Active surveillance is an oncologically safe option for appropriately selected men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy for patients with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: implications of confirmatory testing for patients considering active surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk, number of positive biopsy cores, age, and early confirmatory test results on pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy (RP), in order to better understand whether early confirmatory testing and better risk stratification are necessary for all men with Grade Group (GG) 1 cancers who are considering active surveillance (AS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified men in Michigan initially diagnosed with GG1 prostate cancer, from January 2012 to November 2017, who had a RP within 1 year of diagnosis. Our endpoints were: (i) ≥GG2 cancer at RP and (ii) adverse pathology (≥GG3 and/or ≥pT3a). We compared upgrading according to NCCN risk, number of positive biopsy cores, and age. Last, we examined if confirmatory test results were associated with upgrading or adverse pathology at RP. RESULTS: Amongst 1966 patients with GG1 cancer at diagnosis, the rates of upgrading to ≥GG2 and adverse pathology were 40% and 59% (P < 0.001), and 10% and 17% (P = 0.003) for patients with very-low- and low-risk cancers, respectively. Upgrading by volume ranged from 49% to 67% for ≥GG2, and 16% to 23% for adverse pathology. Generally, more patients aged ≥70 vs <70 years had adverse pathology. Unreassuring confirmatory test results had a higher likelihood of adverse pathology than reassuring tests (35% vs 18%, P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Upgrading and adverse pathology are common amongst patients initially diagnosed with GG1 prostate cancer. Early use of confirmatory testing may facilitate the identification of patients with more aggressive disease ensuring improved risk classification and safer selection of patients for AS.