1 / 16

Localised Prostate Cancer: Is Active Surveillance the “Preferred” Option?

Localised Prostate Cancer: Is Active Surveillance the “Preferred” Option?. Simon F Brewster Oxford, UK. Active surveillance (AS) is the “preferred” option for men with *low-risk localised prostate cancer who are candidates for radical treatment (UK NICE Guidelines, 2008)

alima
Download Presentation

Localised Prostate Cancer: Is Active Surveillance the “Preferred” Option?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Localised Prostate Cancer:Is Active Surveillance the “Preferred” Option? Simon F Brewster Oxford, UK

  2. Active surveillance (AS) is the “preferred” option for men with *low-risk localised prostate cancer who are candidates for radical treatment (UK NICE Guidelines, 2008) *PSA <10ng/ml + Gleason score ≤6 + T1-2a • There is a rising trend of observation in UK (BAUS database)

  3. Observation of localised prostate cancer +/- delayed palliative treatment (watchful waiting) : the evidence • Competing risk analysis (Albertsen, 1998) • Estimated risk analysis for screen-detected disease (Parker, 2006)

  4. Active Surveillance is not the same as Watchful Waiting

  5. Active surveillance: published non-randomised studies

  6. Localised prostate cancer: Advantages of AS • Addresses overdetection of indolent disease : • Gap between diagnosis/incidence (12%) & mortality(3.5%) • 20% in clinical setting; 49% in screened patients (Kattan, 2003; Steyerberg 2007) • Reduces overtreatment of indolent disease : • Swedish randomised study (Bill-Axelson, 2005): NNT by RP = 17 to prevent one cancer death • AS avoids or delays treatment morbidity • Maintains QOL • Reduces healthcare spending?

  7. Limitations of current AS evidence-base • 5 small non-randomised trials • Short follow-up • Lack of standardised inclusion criteria • Lack of standardised follow-up protocol • No consensus on triggers for intervention

  8. Concerns with AS 1: Does delayed treatment reduce the chance of cure? • Delayed prostate cancer surgery for men with small low-grade prostate cancers does not appear to compromise curability (Johns Hopkins criteria) (Warlick, 2006) • Toronto AS series: 2/299 patients died of prostate cancer; 24 patients underwent radical prostatectomy: 14 (58%) had pT3a-c; 2(8%) had N1 disease. “For a group of patients with favourable clinical characteristics, this is a high rate of locally-advanced disease”. (Klotz, 2006) Answer: Unclear

  9. Concerns with AS 2: Can we predict progression in AS patients? • All under investigation/validation in prospective studies: • Clinical features: DRE • PSA kinetics: doubling time or velocity • PSA density • Biopsy features: number of cores; core length • Other biomarkers in biopsy material e.g. p53, DNA arrays • Nomograms to predict insignificant disease Answer: Not very well at present

  10. DRE surveillance • The only way to physically assess the prostate in clinic • Limitations include: • inter-observer variability • Difficulty in estimating nodule size • Difficulty in palpating the entire posterior surface

  11. Prediction of insignificant disease by nomograms (Kattan, J Urol 2003, 170: 1792; Steyerberg, 2007) BUT ...Insignificant disease at biopsy is often significant after saturation biopsy or radical prostatectomy (Allan, 2003; Boccon-Gibod, 2005; Tsang, 2008; Abouassaly, 2008)

  12. PSA kinetics: velocity and doubling time • PSA velocity: • PSAV >2 ng/ml in the year prior to radical treatment associated with ↑ risk of treatment failure and shorter survival. (D’Amico, 2005); • Often not known at diagnosis; • Is likely to be affected by the (BPH) volume of the gland; • PSA doubling time: • Toronto series: median doubling time = 7.0 years; • 42% >10 years; 20% >100 years; 20% <3 years (Klotz, 2006). • cut-offs for recommending active treatment vary: 3 or 4 years; • Swedish screen-detected disease: < 2 years associated with relapse following delayed treatment of; >4 years carried no risk of relapse (Khatami, 2006)

  13. PSA density (PSA / TRUS-prostate volume) • Diagnostically, PSAD >0.15 associated with ↑ risk of cancer (Benson, 1982) • Subject to physiological fluctuations and inter-observer variations; • PSAD correlates with features of prostate cancer aggressiveness: • >0.19: ↑ risk non-confined (45%), Gleason 7+ (45%), cancer volume >5 c.c. (46%), progression after RP (21%). • <0.1: only 18% non-confined, Gleason 7+ only 20%, cancer volume >5 c.c. only 20%, progression after RP only 6%. • <0.15 predicts “insignificant” disease at radical prostatectomy (Allan, 2003); • During AS: PSAD at initial biopsy >0.9 predicts ↑ PSA velocity follow-up (Venkitaraman, 2007)

  14. Concerns with AS 3: how do patients tolerate it? Psychological effects: satisfaction vs. anxiety • 2365 men, those receiving active treatment significantly more satisfied than those receiving no treatment (SEER, Hoffman, 2003) • Psychosocial barriers may be alleviated by good communication/ education/empowerment/peer-support groups (Pickles, 2007) • 329 men, anxiety/depression scores no different between patients on AS (n=100) compared to those receiving/received radiation therapy (Burnet, 2007) Answer: Uncertain

  15. Concerns with AS 4: How safe is it? • AS appears safe for most patients based on the existing short-term non-randomised cohort studies • Web-based prospective validation of AS: the PRIAS study • Lack of randomised trials: 3 in progress • only Canadian START rigorously tests AS vs treatment in phase III randomised setting; • US PIVOT and UK Pro-tecT trials contain observation arms, but do not set out to treat all patients with curative intent. • UK NICE Guidance AS recommendation quickly criticised for lack of consensus and evaluation (Wilt, 2008). Answer: Uncertain

  16. Conclusions • Yes, Active Surveillance is an option for low-risk localised prostate cancer, to reduce over-treatment, it’s morbidity and cost; • Patients should be informed of the uncertainties; • AS will become more prevalent in the future if/when population-based screening programmes are developed; • Careful patient selection and follow-up is important to minimise risk of on-surveillance disease progression; • Identification of early predictors of significant disease or progression will facilitate decision-making and minimise risk of harm; • Randomised trials are awaited to prove AS is as oncologically safe as active treatment.

More Related