Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Has Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer Become Safer? Lessons Learned from a Global Clinical Registry.
Bangma, Chris; Doan, Paul; Zhu, Lin; Remmers, Sebastiaan; Nieboer, Daan; Helleman, Jozien; Roobol, Monique J; Sugimoto, Mikio; Chung, Byung Ha; Lee, Lui Shiong; Frydenberg, Mark; Klotz, Laurence; Peacock, Michael; Perry, Antoinette; Bjartell, Anders; Rannikko, Antti; Van Hemelrijck, Mieke; Dasgupta, Prokar; Moore, Caroline; Trock, Bruce J; Pavlovich, Christian; Steyerberg, Ewout; Carroll, Peter; Koo, Kyo Chul; Hayen, Andrew; Thompson, James.
Afiliação
  • Bangma C; Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.h.bangma@erasmusmc.nl.
  • Doan P; St Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Department of Urology, Sydney, Australia.
  • Zhu L; University of Technology Sydney, Department of Public Health, Sydney, Australia.
  • Remmers S; Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Nieboer D; Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Helleman J; Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Roobol MJ; Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Centre Cancer Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Sugimoto M; Kagawa University Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa, Japan.
  • Chung BH; Yonsei University, College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Lee LS; Department of Urology, Sengkang General Hospital and Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
  • Frydenberg M; Department of Surgery, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; Cabrini Health, Cabrini Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Klotz L; University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
  • Peacock M; University of British Columbia, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada.
  • Perry A; University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
  • Bjartell A; Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
  • Rannikko A; Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
  • Van Hemelrijck M; King's College London, London, UK.
  • Dasgupta P; King's College London, London, UK; Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  • Moore C; University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals Trust, London, UK.
  • Trock BJ; Johns Hopkins University, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Pavlovich C; Johns Hopkins University, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Steyerberg E; Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
  • Carroll P; University of California San Francisco, Department of Urology, San Francisco, USA.
  • Koo KC; Yonsei University, College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Hayen A; University of Technology Sydney, Department of Public Health, Sydney, Australia.
  • Thompson J; St Vincent's Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Department of Urology, Sydney, Australia.
Eur Urol Oncol ; 2024 Jul 17.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39025687
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND

OBJECTIVE:

Active surveillance (AS) has evolved into a widely applied treatment strategy for many men around the world with low-risk prostate cancer (or in selected cases intermediate-risk disease). Here, we report on the safety and acceptability of AS, and treatment outcomes for low- and intermediate-risk tumours over time in 14 623 men with follow-up of over 6 yr.

METHODS:

Clinical data from 26 999 men on AS from 25 cohorts in 15 countries have been collected in an international database from 2000 onwards. KEY FINDINGS AND

LIMITATIONS:

Across our predefined four time periods of 4 yr each (covering the period 2000-2016), there was no significant change in overall survival (OS). However, metastasis-free survival (MFS) rates have improved since the second period and were excellent (>99%). Treatment-free survival rates for earlier periods showed a slightly more rapid shift to radical treatment. Over time, there was a constant proportion of 5% of men for whom anxiety was registered as the reason for treatment alteration. There was, however, also a subset of 10-15% in whom treatment was changed, for which no apparent reason was available. In a subset of men (10-15%), tumour progression was the trigger for treatment. In men who opted for radical treatment, surgery was the most common treatment modality. In those men who underwent radical treatment, 90% were free from biochemical recurrence at 5 yr after treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS Our study confirms that AS was a safe management option over the full duration in this large multicentre cohort with long-term follow-up, given the 84.1% OS and 99.4% MFS at 10 yr. The probability of treatment at 10 yr was 20% in men with initial low-risk tumours and 31% in men with intermediate-risk tumours. New diagnostic modalities may improve the acceptability of follow-up using individual risk assessments, while safely broadening the use of AS in higher-risk tumours. PATIENT

SUMMARY:

Active surveillance (AS) has evolved into a widely applied treatment strategy for many men with prostate cancer around the world. In this report, we show the long-term safety of following AS for men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Our study confirms AS as a safe management option for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. New diagnostic modalities may improve the acceptability of follow-up using individual risk assessments, while safely broadening the use of AS in higher-risk tumours.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article