Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer: Nationwide Observational Study.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to investigate nationwide survival outcomes in men with localized prostate cancer managed on active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 936 men with localized prostate cancer were initiated on active surveillance in Denmark in 2002 to 2012. Kaplan-Meier estimated curative treatment-free, hormonal therapy-free, castration resistant prostate cancer-free and cause specific survival was calculated. RESULTS: Prostate cancer was classified as very low risk in 223 men, low risk in 436, intermediate risk in 259 (87% were at favorable intermediate risk) and high risk in 18. Median followup was 7.5 years (IQR 6.1-9.1). Kaplan-Meier estimated 10-year curative treatment-free survival was 62.8% (95% CI 59.1-66.3), 10-year hormonal therapy-free survival was 92.2% (95% CI 89.2-94.4), 10-year castration resistant prostate cancer-free survival was 97.2% (95% CI 95.3-98.4) and 10-year cause specific survival was 99.6% (95% CI 98.6-99.9). Compared to men with low risk prostate cancer, those with intermediate risk prostate cancer had higher curative treatment-free survival (69% vs 56%, p = 0.008), lower hormonal therapy-free survival (88% vs 95%, p = 0.005) and similar castration resistant prostate cancer-free survival (95% vs 99%, p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide cohort 10-year cause specific survival was similar to that in prospective active surveillance cohorts. Our study supports the use of active surveillance in men with localized prostate cancer, including men with favorable intermediate risk characteristics.

Active Surveillance Versus Radical Prostatectomy in Favorable-risk Localized Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) and radical prostatectomy (RP) are both accepted treatments for men with favorable-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) (ie, clinical tumor category 1-2b, Gleason Grade Group 1-2, and prostate-specific antigen < 20 ng/mL). However, head-to-head studies comparing oncologic outcomes and survival between these 2 treatment strategies are warranted. The objective of this study was to compare the use of prostate cancer treatments and PCa death in men managed on AS and men who underwent immediate RP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an observational study including 647 men on AS and 647 men treated with RP propensity score matched. We examined the 10-year cumulative incidence of salvage radiotherapy, hormonal therapy, castration-resistant PCa, and PCa death. RESULTS: The 10-year curative treatment-free survival for men on AS was 61% (95% confidence interval [CI], 57%-65%). No differences in use of salvage radiotherapy (AS, 2.7%; 95% CI, 1.4%-4.1% vs. RP 5.4%; 95% CI, 3.4%-7.3%), hormonal therapy (AS, 6.9%; 95% CI, 4.4%-9.4% vs. RP, 4.1%; 95% CI, 2.5%-5.6%), developing castration-resistant PCa (AS, 1.7%; 95% CI, 0.5%-2.9% vs. RP, 2.0%; 95% CI, 0.7%-3.4%), or cumulative PCa mortality (AS, 0.4%; 95% CI, 0%-1.0% vs. RP, 0.5%; 95% CI, 0%-1.5%) were observed between the treatment strategies. The main limitation was the non-random allocation to treatment strategy. CONCLUSION: In this observational study on men with favorable-risk localized PCa, we found similar PCa mortality at 10 years between men on AS and men who underwent immediate RP. Moreover, there were no differences in the use of PCa therapies between the groups. Our study supports active surveillance as a treatment strategy for men with favorable-risk localized PCa.