Prostate cancer mortality and metastasis under different biopsy frequencies in North American active surveillance cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is an accepted means of managing low-risk prostate cancer. Because of the rarity of downstream events, data from existing AS cohorts cannot yet address how differences in surveillance intensity affect metastasis and mortality. This study projected the comparative benefits of different AS schedules in men diagnosed with prostate cancer who had Gleason score (GS) ≤6 disease and risk profiles similar to those in North American AS cohorts. METHODS: Times of GS upgrading were simulated based on AS data from the University of Toronto, Johns Hopkins University, the University of California at San Francisco, and the Canary Pass Active Surveillance Cohort. Times to metastasis and prostate cancer death, informed by models from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 trial, were projected under biopsy surveillance schedules ranging from watchful waiting to annual biopsies. Outcomes included the risk of metastasis, the risk of death, remaining life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs. RESULTS: Compared with watchful waiting, AS biopsies reduced the risk of prostate cancer metastasis and prostate cancer death at 20 years by 1.4% to 3.3% and 1.0% to 2.4%, respectively; and 5-year biopsies reduced the risk of metastasis and prostate cancer death by 1.0% to 2.4% and 0.6% to 1.6%, respectively. There was little difference between annual and 5-year biopsy schedules in terms of LYs (range of differences, 0.04-0.16 LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (range of differences, -0.02 to 0.09 quality-adjusted LYs). CONCLUSIONS: Among men diagnosed with GS ≤6 prostate cancer, obtaining a biopsy every 3 or 4 years appears to be an acceptable alternative to more frequent biopsies. Reducing surveillance intensity for those who have a low risk of progression reduces the number of biopsies while preserving the benefit of more frequent schedules.

The association between clinically determined periodontal disease and prostate-specific antigen concentration in men without prostate cancer: the 2009-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the association between clinically assessed periodontal disease and serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration in men without a prostate cancer diagnosis in a US nationally representative sample of non-institutionalized men. METHODS: Included were 1263 men aged ≥ 40 years who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2009-2010. Measurements of periodontal health and tooth count were used to define periodontal disease severity (no, mild, moderate, severe) and edentulism. Linear and logistic regressions were used to estimate the association of periodontal disease severity and edentulism with PSA concentration and elevated PSA, respectively. RESULTS: Adjusting for age and other factors including race, body mass index, and education, the natural logarithm of PSA concentration did not change with increasing severity (mild - 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.34 to - 0.05; moderate - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.26 to 0.01; severe - 0.16, 95% CI - 0.43 to 0.12; edentulism - 0.16, 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.04; P-trend 0.13) compared with dentate men without periodontal disease. Although the multivariable-adjusted ORs of elevated PSA were not statistically significant, participants with more severe periodontal disease were less likely to have PSA > 2.0 and > 2.5 ng/mL, but more likely to have PSA > 4.0 ng/mL, compared to dentate men without periodontal disease. Similar non-significant associations with PSA were observed when comparing edentulous men to dentate men without periodontal disease. CONCLUSIONS: In this US nationally representative sample, men with periodontal disease did not have higher serum PSA and were not more likely to have clinically elevated PSA after taking into account age and other factors, contrary to the hypothesis. This study suggests that periodontal disease does not notably affect the specificity of PSA for prostate cancer screening.

Older Age Predicts Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Grade Reclassification to Aggressive Prostate Cancer in Men on Active Surveillance.

PURPOSE: Age at prostate cancer diagnosis has been positively associated with prostate cancer specific mortality and in men on active surveillance with a higher risk of biopsy grade reclassification to Gleason score 3 + 4 or greater (Grade Group 2 or greater). However, to our knowledge the association between age and biopsy grade reclassification to an aggressive phenotype (Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater [Grade Group 3 or greater]) has not been explored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1995 to 2016 we followed 1,625 men 41 to 81 years old with NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) very low (68%) or low (32%) risk prostate cancer on active surveillance. We determined the rate of biopsy grade reclassification to Grade Group 3 or greater. Competing risk analysis was applied to evaluate the association between age at enrollment and the risk of biopsy grade reclassification. Additionally, in men who underwent radical prostatectomy after biopsy grade reclassification we assessed the rate of radical prostatectomy grade reclassification (ie radical prostatectomy Grade Group greater than biopsy Grade Group). RESULTS: The 5-year incidence of biopsy grade reclassification to Grade Group 3 or greater was 4%, 7% and 14% in men younger than 60, 60 to 69 and 70 years old or older, respectively (p <0.001). On univariate analysis older age was associated with biopsy grade reclassification to Grade Group 3 or greater (per 10-year increase HR 2.43, p <0.001). On multivariable analysis adjusting for year of diagnosis, race, prostate specific antigen density and cancer volume at diagnosis older age remained associated with biopsy grade reclassification to Grade Group 3 or greater (per 10-year increase HR 2.19, p <0.001). In men who underwent radical prostatectomy after biopsy grade reclassification those who were older had a higher rate of radical prostatectomy grade reclassification (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In men on active surveillance older age at diagnosis was positively associated with biopsy grade reclassification to Grade Group 3 or greater and radical prostatectomy grade reclassification. These observations imply that for many older men, active surveillance as opposed to watchful waiting remains a more appropriate management strategy.

Comparative Analysis of Biopsy Upgrading in Four Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohorts.

Background: Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly accepted for managing low-risk prostate cancer, yet there is no consensus about implementation. This lack of consensus is due in part to uncertainty about risks for disease progression, which have not been systematically compared or integrated across AS studies with variable surveillance protocols and dropout to active treatment. Objective: To compare risks for upgrading from a Gleason score (GS) of 6 or less to 7 or more across AS studies after accounting for differences in surveillance intervals and competing treatments and to evaluate tradeoffs of more versus less frequent biopsies. Design: Joint statistical model of longitudinal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and risks for biopsy upgrading. Setting: Johns Hopkins University (JHU); Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS); University of California, San Francisco (UCSF); and University of Toronto (UT) AS studies. Patients: 2576 men aged 40 to 80 years with a GS between 2 and 6 and clinical stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer enrolled between 1995 and 2014. Measurements: PSA levels and biopsy GSs. Results: After variable surveillance intervals and competing treatments were accounted for, estimated risks for biopsy upgrading were similar in the PASS and UT studies but higher in UCSF and lower in JHU studies. All cohorts had a delay of 3 to 5 months in detecting upgrading with biennial biopsies starting after a first confirmatory biopsy versus annual biopsies. Limitation: The model does not account for possible misclassification of biopsy GS. Conclusion: Men in different AS studies have different risks for biopsy upgrading after variable surveillance protocols and competing treatments are accounted for. Despite these differences, the consequences of more versus less frequent biopsies seem to be similar across cohorts. Biennial biopsies seem to be an acceptable alternative to annual biopsies. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

A comprehensive evaluation of CHEK2 germline mutations in men with prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Germline mutations in CHEK2 have been associated with prostate cancer (PCa) risk. Our objective is to examine whether germline pathogenic CHEK2 mutations can differentiate risk of lethal from indolent PCa. METHODS: A case-case study of 703 lethal PCa patients and 1455 patients with low-risk localized PCa of European, African, and Chinese origin was performed. Germline DNA samples from these patients were sequenced for CHEK2. Mutation carrier rates and their association with lethal PCa were analyzed using the Fisher exact test and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: In the entire study population, 40 (1.85%) patients were identified as carrying one of 15 different germline CHEK2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutations. CHEK2 mutations were detected in 16 (2.28%) of 703 lethal PCa patients compared with 24 (1.65%) of 1455 low-risk PCa patients (P = 0.31). No association was found between CHEK2 mutation status and early-diagnosis or PCa-specific survival time. However, the most common mutation in CHEK2, c.1100delC (p.T367 fs), had a significantly higher carrier rate (1.28%) in lethal PCa patients than low-risk PCa patients of European American origin (0.16%), P = 0.0038. The estimated Odds Ratio of this mutation for lethal PCa was 7.86. The carrier rate in lethal PCa was also significantly higher than that (0.46%) in 32 461 non-Finnish European subjects from the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While overall CHEK2 mutations were not significantly more common in men with lethal compared to low-risk PCa, the specific CHEK2 mutation, c.1100delC, appears to contribute to an increased risk of lethal PCa in European American men.

Tumor Volume on Biopsy of Low Risk Prostate Cancer Managed with Active Surveillance.

PURPOSE: Contemporary clinical guidelines recommend active surveillance of men with low risk prostate cancer. Low risk disease spans any potential volume of Gleason score 6 cancer without sufficient attention to tumor volume in the past. Therefore, we compared tumor characteristics in men at low risk on active surveillance to men treated with radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated an institutional cohort of 1,633 men with very low risk disease (clinical stage T1c, prostate specific antigen density less than 0.15 ng/ml/cm3, 2 or more positive cores and 50% or greater core involvement) and low risk disease (clinical stage T2a or less, prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml and Gleason score 6 or less). Among patients at low risk we calculated the proportion who failed to meet very low risk volume criteria (greater than 2 positive cores or greater than 50% core involvement). Clinical and pathological metrics in the active surveillance cohort were compared to those in a cohort of men at low risk who underwent radical prostatectomy in the current era of 2011 to 2016. RESULTS: In the active surveillance cohort 1,119 men (69%) met very low risk criteria and 514 (31%) had low risk disease. In the low risk population only 138 men (27%) harbored higher volume cancer exceeding very low risk criteria compared to 815 (82%) at low risk who underwent radical prostatectomy (p <0.001). Overall the low risk active surveillance population had fewer positive biopsy cores (median 1 vs 3, p <0.001) and a lower maximum percent of core involvement (median 10% vs 40%, p <0.001) compared to patients at low risk who underwent radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Data supporting the safety of active surveillance in men at low risk at our institution were derived from a distinct subgroup harboring a limited cancer volume. Until acceptable outcomes are confirmed for higher volume tumors it is important to remain mindful of these limitations before broadly recommending active surveillance to all low risk men.

Subtyping the Risk of Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer for Active Surveillance Based on Adverse Pathology at Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Intermediate risk prostate cancer is a heterogenous classification with favorable proposed criteria based on men treated with radiation therapy. However, there is uncertain application to active surveillance. We quantified the rate of adverse surgical pathology and implications for survival in patients at favorable intermediate risk compared to those with low risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a comparative cohort study of men with prostate cancer from 2009 to 2013 in the National Cancer Database who underwent radical prostatectomy. The study primary end point was adverse pathology, defined as Grade Group 3 or greater/pT3b/pN1. Various favorable intermediate risk definitions were evaluated, including the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center definition of Grade Group 2 or less with only 1 intermediate risk factor (Grade Group 2/cT2b/prostate specific antigen 10 to 20 ng/ml), which we defined as type 1 intermediate risk. The remaining patients at intermediate risk were classified as type 2 intermediate risk. Log binomial, logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models were applied. RESULTS: Adverse pathological findings were noted in 3,519 of the 51,688 patients (6.8%) at low risk and 8,888 of the 42,720 Grade Group 2 patients (20.8%) at intermediate risk (RR 3.06, 95% CI 2.95-3.17, p <0.001). Stratification by prostate specific antigen and volume minimally impacted the absolute rate. Results were similar for the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center definition (type 1 intermediate risk). Type 2 intermediate risk led to a greater risk of adverse pathology (RR 8.52, 8.23-8.82, p <0.001) and Grade Group 1 intermediate risk led to lower risk (RR 2.00, 1.86-2.16, p <0.001). Patients at favorable intermediate risk had worse overall survival than patients at low risk in adjusted models due to adverse pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy was observed at a threefold higher rate in patients classified at favorable intermediate risk compared to low risk, leading to worse overall survival. Men at intermediate risk may be better classified as types 1 and 2 since none showed pathological outcomes similar to those of men at low risk.

Combining Prostate Health Index density, magnetic resonance imaging and prior negative biopsy status to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the performance of Prostate Health Index (PHI) density (PHID) combined with MRI and prior negative biopsy (PNB) status for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients without a prior diagnosis of PCa, with elevated prostate-specific antigen and a normal digital rectal examination who underwent PHI testing prospectively prior to prostate biopsy were included in this study. PHID was calculated retrospectively using prostate volume derived from transrectal ultrasonography at biopsy. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression modelling, along with receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, was used to determine the ability of serum biomarkers to predict clinically significant PCa (defined as either grade group [GG] ≥2 disease or GG1 PCa detected in >2 cores or >50% of any one core) on biopsy. Age, PNB status and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score were incorporated into the regression models. RESULTS: Of the 241 men who qualified for the study, 91 (37.8%) had clinically significant PCa on biopsy. The median (interquartile range) PHID was 0.74 (0.44-1.24); it was 1.18 (0.77-1.83) and 0.55 (0.38-0.89) in those with and without clinically significant PCa on biopsy, respectively (P < 0.001). On univariable logistic regression, age and PNB status were associated with clinically significant cancer. Of the tested biomarkers, PHID demonstrated the highest discriminative ability for clinically significant disease (area under the ROC curve [AUC] 0.78 for the univariable model). That continued to be the case in multivariable logistic regression models incorporating age and PNB status (AUC 0.82). At a threshold of 0.44, representing the 25th percentile of PHID in the cohort, PHID was 92.3% sensitive and 35.3% specific for clinically significant PCa; the sensitivity and specificity were 93.0% and 32.4% and 97.4% and 29.1% for GG ≥2 and GG ≥3 disease, respectively. In the 104 men who underwent MRI, PI-RADS score was complementary to PHID, with a PI-RADS score ≥3 or, if PI-RADS score ≤2, a PHID ≥0.44, detecting 100% of clinically significant disease. For that subgroup, of the biomarkers tested, PHID (AUC 0.90) demonstrated the highest discriminative ability for clinically significant disease on multivariable logistic regression incorporating age, PNB status and PI-RADS score. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary cohort of men undergoing prostate biopsy for the diagnosis of PCa, PHID outperformed PHI and other PSA derivatives in the diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Incorporating age, PNB status and PI-RADS score led to even further gains in the diagnostic performance of PHID. Furthermore, PI-RADS score was found to be complementary to PHID. Using 0.44 as a threshold for PHID, 35.3% of unnecessary biopsies could have been avoided at the cost of missing 7.7% of clinically significant cancers. Despite these encouraging results, prospective validation is needed.

Comparison of Biochemical Recurrence-Free Survival after Radical Prostatectomy Triggered by Grade Reclassification during Active Surveillance and in Men Newly Diagnosed with Similar Grade Disease.

PURPOSE: We compared biochemical recurrence between men on active surveillance who underwent radical prostatectomy triggered by grade reclassification and men diagnosed with similar grade disease treated with immediate radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the records of men who underwent surgery from 1995 to 2015 at our institution. We identified 4 groups, including 94 and 56 men on active surveillance who underwent radical prostatectomy following reclassification to Gleason 7 (3 + 4) or greater (grade groups 2 or greater) and Gleason 7 (3 + 4) (grade group 2), and 3,504 and 1,979 in the immediate prostatectomy group diagnosed with grade group 2 or greater and 2, respectively. Biochemical recurrence was assessed by Kaplan-Meir analysis and a multivariable Cox model. RESULTS: Men on active surveillance had a lower incidence of biochemical recurrence than men in the immediate radical prostatectomy groups for biopsy grade groups 2 or greater and 2 (each p <0.05). One, 5 and 10-year biochemical recurrence-free survival for men in the active surveillance group vs the immediate radical prostatectomy group was 97.9% vs 85.5%, 76.6% vs 65.1% and 69.0% vs 54.2% in biopsy grade groups 2 or greater (p = 0.009) and 96.4% vs 91.2%, 89.6% vs 74.0% and 89.6% vs 63.9%, respectively, in biopsy grade group 2 (p = 0.071). For biopsy grade groups 2 or greater there was no significant difference in the risk of biochemical recurrence between the groups after adjusting for age, biopsy extent of cancer and prostate specific antigen density. CONCLUSIONS: Patients on active surveillance reclassified to grade groups 2 or greater are at no greater risk for treatment failure than men newly diagnosed with similar grades.

Risk prediction tool for grade re-classification in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: To create a nomogram for men on active surveillance (AS) for prediction of grade re-classification (GR) above Gleason score 6 (Grade group >2) at surveillance biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a cohort of men enrolled in an AS programme, a multivariable model was used to identify clinical and pathological parameters predictive of GR. Nomogram performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration, and decision curve analysis. RESULTS: Of 1 374 men, 254 (18.50%) were re-classified to Gleason ≥7 on surveillance prostate biopsy. Variables predictive of GR were earlier year of diagnosis [≤2004 vs ≥2005; odds ratio (OR) 2.16, P < 0.001], older age (OR 1.05, P < 0.001), higher prostate-specific antigen density [OR 1.19 (per 0.1 unit increase), P = 0.04], bilateral disease (OR 2.86, P < 0.001), risk strata (low-risk vs very-low-risk, OR 1.79, P < 0.001), and total number of biopsies without GR (OR 0.68, P < 0.001). On internal validation, a nomogram created using the multivariable model had an area under the curve of 0.757 (95% confidence interval 0.730-0.797) for predicting GR at the time of next surveillance biopsy. CONCLUSION: The nomogram described is currently being used at each return visit to assess the need for a surveillance biopsy, and could increase retention in AS.

PTEN loss and chromosome 8 alterations in Gleason grade 3 prostate cancer cores predicts the presence of un-sampled grade 4 tumor: implications for active surveillance.

Men who enter active surveillance because their biopsy exhibits only Gleason grade 3 (G3) frequently have higher grade tumor missed by biopsy. Thus, biomarkers are needed that, when measured on G3 tissue, can predict the presence of higher grade tumor in the whole prostate. We evaluated whether PTEN loss, chromosome 8q gain (MYC) and/or 8p loss (LPL) measured only on G3 cores is associated with un-sampled G4 tumor. A tissue microarray was constructed of prostatectomy tissue from patients whose prostates exhibited only Gleason score 3+3, only 3+4 or only 4+3 tumor (n=50 per group). Cores sampled only from areas of G3 were evaluated for PTEN loss by immunohistochemistry, and PTEN deletion, LPL/8p loss and MYC/8q gain by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Biomarker results were compared between Gleason score 6 vs 7 tumors using conditional logistic regression. PTEN protein loss, odds ratio=4.99, P=0.033; MYC/8q gain, odds ratio=5.36, P=0.010; and LPL/8p loss, odds ratio=3.96, P=0.003 were significantly more common in G3 cores derived from Gleason 7 vs Gleason 6 tumors. PTEN gene deletion was not statistically significant. Associations were stronger comparing Gleason 4+3 vs 6 than for Gleason 3+4 vs 6. MYC/8q gain, LPL/8p loss and PTEN protein loss measured in G3 tissue microarray cores strongly differentiate whether the core comes from a Gleason 6 or Gleason 7 tumor. If validated to predict upgrading from G3 biopsy to prostatectomy these biomarkers could reduce the likelihood of enrolling high-risk men and facilitate safe patient selection for active surveillance.

Practice patterns and individual variability of surgeons performing radical prostatectomy at a high volume academic center.

PURPOSE: Regional and local variation in radical prostatectomy rates contribute to overtreatment of low risk prostate cancer. We hypothesized that individual practice variability would be minimal among urologists practicing at a high volume academic center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed the percent of patients at low risk treated with radical prostatectomy in a given year and comorbidity adjusted life expectancy in an institutional database accounting for temporal trends and disease characteristics. Multivariable linear, spline and logistic models were applied with a hierarchical random effects model to estimate the proportion of variance due to surgeon and temporal effects. RESULTS: Of the 20,655 men included in study 11,873 (57.5%) had low risk disease. The Gleason score leading to radical prostatectomy increased with time. Overall the percent of patients at low risk treated with prostatectomy in a given year increased 3.49% yearly from 1991 to 2001 and then decreased by 1.73% yearly from 2001 to 2013. Greater surgeon experience was associated with a higher percent of patients at low risk treated with prostatectomy in a given year from 1991 to 2001 (0.46% per year of experience). High volume surgeons (total more than 1,000 radical prostatectomies) operated on a slightly greater percent of patients at low risk (3.54%). Substantial practice variation existed among surgeons for operating on men 65 years old or older at low risk (OR 3.15, 95% CI 1.62-6.11). There was similar variation when operating on older patients with a life expectancy of less than 15 years. Surgeon level and temporal effects explained 24% and 70%, respectively, of the variance in the percent of patients at low risk treated with radical prostatectomy in a given year. CONCLUSIONS: At a high volume academic center substantial practice variation exists among surgeons when selecting patients with prostate cancer to undergo radical prostatectomy based on risk and life expectancy even among older patients. In addition to patient decision support tools, publicly reporting individual practice patterns at the provider level could decrease the overtreatment of low risk prostate cancer.

Conditional probability of reclassification in an active surveillance program for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the risk of prostate cancer reclassification by time on active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1995 to 2014 we evaluated 557 and 251 men at very low and at low risk, respectively, who were on active surveillance and compliant with prostate biopsies. Our primary study outcome was reclassification to higher risk disease by grade or extent. Freedom from reclassification was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier approach with adjustment for covariates using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Within the first 2 years of surveillance patient survival free of reclassification by grade (p = 0.20) and by any biopsy criteria (p = 0.25) was similar in men with very low and low risk disease. After 2 years men with low risk disease were 2.4 times more likely to be diagnosed with a Gleason score of greater than 6 than men with very low risk disease (p = 0.002, HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.9-3.5). Additionally, beyond 2 years on surveillance the risk of lifetime reclassification by grade and by any criteria decreased by 30% and 35% (each p <0.0001, HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60-0.76 and HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.57-0.72, respectively) with each biopsy that showed no reclassification. CONCLUSIONS: The reclassification rate during surveillance is not equally distributed across time or risk groups. Due to misclassification at diagnosis the reclassification rate in very low and low risk groups is similar in the first 2 years but differs significantly beyond 2 years. The risk of reclassification decreases with time for each nonreclassifying biopsy beyond 2 years.

Radical Prostatectomy Findings in Men on Active Surveillance: Variable Findings Dependent on Reason for Surgery and Entry Criteria.

PURPOSE: We studied adverse radical prostatectomy findings in men on an active surveillance program with different entry and exit criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 80 men with biopsy progression, 33 who opted out for personal reasons and 24 who initially did not meet entry criteria mainly due to increased prostate specific antigen density. RESULTS: Of men who opted out 78.8% had a higher Gleason score of 6 than men who progressed on biopsy (46.2%, p = 0.002) and men with high prostate specific antigen density (45.8%, p = 0.02). Men with high prostate specific antigen density had less organ confined disease than the group that opted out (p <0.006) and a trend compared to the biopsy progression group (p = 0.07). Mean dominant tumor volume was lower in men who opted out than in those with biopsy progression (0.56 vs 1.1 cc, p = 0.03). The incidence of insignificant cancer was higher in men who opted out (48.4%) than in those with biopsy progression (28.4%, p = 0.05) and those with high prostate specific antigen density (20.8%, p = 0.035). There was a higher incidence of anterior tumor in men with high prostate specific antigen density (55.0%) than with biopsy progression (21.3%, p = 0.009) and a trend compared to those who opted out (27.3%, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of men with biopsy progression still had tumors with features of curable disease. Men who opted out without biopsy progression had even less adverse findings, which supports counseling men to stay on active surveillance while they meet followup criteria. Men with elevated prostate specific antigen density had more anterior tumors and less organ confined cancer, substantiating that the ideal patients for active surveillance are those who meet all entry criteria.

Fluoroquinolone resistance in the rectal carriage of men in an active surveillance cohort: longitudinal analysis.

PURPOSE: Rectal swabs can identify men with fluoroquinolone resistant bacteria and decrease the infection rate after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy by targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis. We evaluated the rate of fluoroquinolone resistance in an active surveillance cohort with attention to factors associated with resistance and changes in resistance with time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 416 men with prostate cancer on active surveillance who underwent rectal swabs to assess the rate of fluoroquinolone resistance compared to that in men undergoing diagnostic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. The chi-square test and Student t-test were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Poisson regression analysis was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: On the initial swab fluoroquinolone resistance was found in 95 of 416 men (22.8%) on active surveillance compared to 54 of 221 (24.4%) in the diagnostic biopsy cohort (p = 0.675). Diabetes was found in 4.0% of the fluoroquinolone sensitive group vs 14.7% of the resistant group (p <0.001). Biopsy history was not associated with resistance. Of those with a resistant first swab 62.9% had a resistant second swab and 88.9% of those with 2 resistant swabs showed resistance on the third swab. Of men with a sensitive first swab 10.6% showed resistance on the second swab and 10.6% of those with 2 sensitive swabs had resistant third swabs. CONCLUSIONS: One of 4 men who present for surveillance and diagnostic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy have rectal flora resistant to fluoroquinolone. Resistance is significantly associated with diabetes but the number of prior biopsies is not. Men with fluoroquinolone resistant flora tend to remain resistant with time.

Indications for intervention during active surveillance of prostate cancer: a comparison of the Johns Hopkins and Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocols.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse how patients enrolled in our biopsy based surveillance programme would fare under the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol, which uses PSA kinetics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Since 1995, 1125 men with very-low-risk prostate cancer have enrolled in the AS programme at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH), which is based on monitoring with annual biopsy. The PRIAS protocol uses a combination of periodic biopsies (in years 1, 4, and 7) and prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) to trigger intervention. Patients enrolled in the JHH AS programme were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate how the use of the PRIAS protocol would alter the timing and use of curative intervention. RESULTS: Over a median of 2.1 years of follow up, 38% of men in the JHH AS programme had biopsy reclassification. Of those, 62% were detected at biopsy intervals corresponding to the PRIAS criteria, while 16% were detected between scheduled PRIAS biopsies, resulting in a median delay in detection of 1.9 years. Of the 202 men with >5 years of follow-up, 11% in the JHH programme were found to have biopsy reclassification after it would have been identified in the PRIAS protocol, resulting in a median delay of 4.7 years to reclassification. In all, 12% of patients who would have undergone immediate intervention under PRIAS due to abnormal PSA kinetics would never have undergone reclassification on the JHH protocol and thus would not have undergone definitive intervention. CONCLUSIONS: There are clear differences between PSA kinetics-based AS programmes and biopsy based programmes. Further studies should address whether and how the differences in timing of intervention impact subsequent disease progression and prostate cancer mortality.

Aligning evidence and practice: future research needs to increase utilization of active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The prolonged natural history of prostate cancers detected through prostate-specific antigen-based testing has resulted in many men today undergoing treatment for prostate cancer that will not improve health outcomes. Active surveillance is an underutilized approach to reducing overtreatment of favorable risk prostate cancer. This review outlines the areas for future research that could improve the uptake of active surveillance as a management option. RECENT FINDINGS: The reasons for limited uptake of active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer are multifactorial and complex. The variability in management of favorable risk disease among older men can be attributed to a greater extent to the individual physician rather than tumor and patient characteristics. Increased uptake of active surveillance will depend on improved risk stratification at diagnosis, surveillance protocol standardization, and patient decision support that accounts for individual patient preferences. SUMMARY: The disconnect between evidence and practice with respect to management of favorable risk prostate cancer has resulted in overtreatment. Active surveillance as a management option for favorable risk disease may become more acceptable to patients and physicians as research needs are met.

Association of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging parameters with histological findings from MRI/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy.

INTRODUCTION: Purpose of this pilot study was to correlate quantitative parameters derived from the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) of the prostate with results from MRI guided transrectal ultrasound (MRI/TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy in men with suspected prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine consecutive patients who had 3.0T MP-MRI and subsequent MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy were included and 73 MRI-identified targets were sampled by 177 cores. The pre-biopsy MP-MRI consisted of T2-weighted, diffusion weighted (DWI), and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) images. The association of quantitative MRI measurements with biopsy histopathology findings was assessed by Mann-Whitney U- test and Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Of 73 targets, biopsy showed benign prostate tissue in 46 (63%), cancer in 23 (31.5%), and atypia/high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in four (5.5%) targets. The median volume of cancer-positive targets was 1.3 cm3. The cancer-positive targets were located in the peripheral zone (56.5%), transition zone (39.1%), and seminal vesicle (4.3%). Nine of 23 (39.1%) cancer-positive targets were higher grade cancer (Gleason grade > 6). Higher grade targets and cancer-positive targets compared to benign lesions exhibited lower mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value (952.7 < 1167.9 < 1278.9), and lower minimal extracellular volume fraction (ECF) (0.13 < 0.185 < 0.213), respectively. The difference in parameters was more pronounced between higher grade cancer and benign lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings from a pilot study indicate that quantitative MRI parameters can predict malignant histology on MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy, which is a valuable technique to ensure adequate sampling of MRI-visible suspicious lesions under TRUS guidance and may impact patient management. The DWI-based quantitative measurement exhibits a stronger association with biopsy findings than the other MRI parameters.

Value of transition zone biopsy in active surveillance of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: For patients on active surveillance there are limited data on transition zone sampling upon followup biopsy. We verified the value of transition zone biopsy in the active surveillance setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study included 1,059 sets of prostate biopsies from a total of 534 patients on active surveillance at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Each set comprised at least 14 cores with 2 or more from the transition zone. Of these men 53 underwent radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Patients with tumors in the peripheral zone as well as the transition zone had a higher maximum Gleason score and an increased maximum percent of cancer per core than men with tumor in the peripheral or transition zone only. In 12 of the 534 patients (2.2%) the tumor on active surveillance biopsy was limited to transition zone core(s). Of the 534 patients 11 (2.1%) had tumor with a high Gleason score (greater than 6) or extensive involvement (greater than 50%) of any core exclusively on transition zone biopsy. However, in 10 of 15 radical prostatectomy cases (66.7%) with prior positive transition zone biopsies the tumors had little or no transition zone component. In addition, transition zone status on biopsy had no significant relationship with Gleason score, extraprostatic extension or seminal vesicle involvement at radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the additional yield is sufficiently low to argue against routine transition zone sampling in men undergoing followup biopsy on active surveillance. However, further study is needed to make definitive recommendations.