Display options
Cite
Chandrasekar T, Bowler N, Schneider A, et al. Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Men With Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis. Urology. 2021;155:101-109doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.05.068.
Chandrasekar, T., Bowler, N., Schneider, A., Goldberg, H., Mark, J. R., Trabulsi, E. J., Lallas, C. D., & Gomella, L. G. (2021). Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Men With Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis. Urology, 155101-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.05.068
Chandrasekar, Thenappan, et al. "Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Men With Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis." Urology vol. 155 (2021): 101-109. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.05.068
Chandrasekar T, Bowler N, Schneider A, Goldberg H, Mark JR, Trabulsi EJ, Lallas CD, Gomella LG. Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Men With Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis. Urology. 2021 Sep;155:101-109. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.05.068. Epub 2021 Jun 27. PMID: 34186134.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Urology. 2021 Sep;155:101-109. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.05.068. Epub 2021 Jun 27.

Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Men With Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis.

Urology

Thenappan Chandrasekar, Nicholas Bowler, Adam Schneider, Hanan Goldberg, James R Mark, Edouard J Trabulsi, Costas D Lallas, Leonard G Gomella

Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: [email protected].
  2. Department of Urology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA.
  3. Department of Urology, SUNY Upstate, Syracuse, NY.

PMID: 34186134 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.05.068

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assesses if active surveillance (AS) is an appropriate treatment modality for patients with intermediate risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) utilizing population-level data to compare the survival outcomes of men with low risk (LR) and IR PCa initially treated with AS, watchful waiting (WW) or active treatment (AT).

METHODS: In total, 166,244 patients were initially identified in the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database using biopsy Gleason grade group (GG) alone-GG1 and GG2. In total, 94,891 patients with GG1 and GG2 disease were further stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk categories-LR, favorable IR (fIR), and unfavorable IR (uIR). Predictors of cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed, stratified by risk classification and initial treatment-AT (first-line curative surgery or radiotherapy), AS or WW, utilizing the new "Watchful waiting recode (2010+)" variable.

RESULTS: We found GG2 patients on AS had worse CSS and OS than GG2 patients who received AT and GG1 patients treated with AS or AT; these trends persist within the National Comprehensive Cancer Network fIR and uIR cohorts. WW patients (GG1, GG2, LR, fIR, and uIR) had the worst survival outcomes of any cohort (log-rank tests P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a significantly worse 5-year CSS and OS for men with GG2, fIR, and uIR PCa treated with AS compared to AT. Our analysis suggests that AS should not be the preferred treatment modality for IR PCa.

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Publication Types