CONTEXT: Many men with clinically localized prostate cancer are being monitored as part of active surveillance (AS) programs, but little is known about reasons for receiving radical treatment.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
OBJECTIVES: A systematic review of the evidence about AS was undertaken, with a meta-analysis to identify predictors of radical treatment.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive search of the Embase, MEDLINE and Web of Knowledge databases to March 2014 was performed. Studies reporting on men with localized prostate cancer followed by AS or monitoring were included. AS was defined where objective eligibility criteria, management strategies, and triggers for clinical review or radical treatment were reported.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The 26 AS cohorts included 7627 men, with a median follow-up of 3.5 yr (range of medians 1.5-7.5 yr). The cohorts had a wide range of inclusion criteria, monitoring protocols, and triggers for radical treatment. There were eight prostate cancer deaths and five cases of metastases in 24 981 person-years of follow-up. Each year, 8.8% of men (95% confidence interval 6.7-11.0%) received radical treatment, most commonly because of biopsy findings, prostate-specific antigen triggers, or patient choice driven by anxiety. Studies in which most men changed treatment were those including only low-risk Gleason score 6 disease and scheduled rebiopsies.
CONCLUSIONS: The wide variety of AS protocols and lack of robust evidence make firm conclusions difficult. Currently, patients and clinicians have to make judgments about the balance of risks and benefits in AS protocols. The publication of robust evidence from randomized trials and longer-term follow-up of cohorts is urgently required.
PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed 26 studies of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. There was evidence that studies including men with the lowest risk disease and scheduled rebiopsy had higher rates of radical treatment.
Simpkin AJ, Tilling K, Martin RM, Lane JA, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, Neal DE, Metcalfe C, Donovan JL. Are you the author?
School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Bristol Nutrition Biomedical Research Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Guy's Hospital, London, UK; Cancer Research UK, Cambridge Research Institute, Cambridge, UK.
Reference: Eur Urol. 2015 Jan 21. pii: S0302-2838(15)00018-4.