It remains unclear whether men selecting active surveillance (AS) are at increased risk of unfavorable longer term outcomes as compared with men who undergo immediate treatment.
To compare adverse pathologic outcomes in men with favorable-risk prostate cancer who underwent delayed prostatectomy after surveillance (DPAS) to those who elected immediate prostatectomy (IRP).
We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective AS registry from 2004 to 2014. From the Johns Hopkins AS program (n=1298), we identified a subset of men who underwent DPAS (n=89) and was representative of the entire cohort, not just those that were reclassified to higher risk. These men were compared with men who underwent IRP (n =3788).
We measured adverse pathologic features (primary Gleason pattern ≥4, seminal vesicle invasion [SVI], or lymph node [LN] positivity). Multivariable models were adjusted for age, prostate-specific antigen density, and baseline risk classification.
Delayed prostatectomy occurred at a median of 2. 0 yr (range: 0. 6-9. 0) after diagnosis. The DPAS and IRP cohorts demonstrated similar proportions of men with primary Gleason pattern ≥4 (17% vs 20%; p=0. 11), SVI (3. 3% vs 3. 2%; p=0. 53), LN positivity (2. 3% vs 1. 2%; p=0. 37), and overall adverse pathologic features (21. 3% vs 17. 0%; p=0. 32). The adjusted odds ratio of adverse pathology was 1. 33 (95% confidence interval, 0. 82-2. 79; p=0. 13) for DPAS as compared with IRP. Limitations include a modest cohort size and a limited number of events.
In men with favorable-risk cancer, the decision to undergo AS is not independently associated with adverse pathologic outcomes.
This report compares men with favorable-risk prostate cancer who elected active surveillance with those who underwent immediate surgery accounting for evidence that approximately one-third of men who choose surveillance will eventually undergo treatment. Our findings suggest that men who are closely followed with surveillance may have similar outcomes to men who elect immediate surgery, but additional research is needed.
European urology. 2015 Oct 05 [Epub ahead of print]
Jeffrey J Tosoian, Debasish Sundi, Bruce J Trock, Patricia Landis, Jonathan I Epstein, Edward M Schaeffer, H Ballentine Carter, Mufaddal Mamawala
The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. , The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. , The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA. , The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. , The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA; Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. , The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA; Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. , The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA; Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA. , The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.