Triggers for transition from active surveillance to radical treatment of prostate cancer 2008–2020 – a case-control study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.34803Keywords:
active surveillance, prostate cancer, triggers for transition to radical treatmentAbstract
Objective: To examine associations between objective signs of progression (triggers) and transition from active surveillance (AS) to radical treatment for prostate cancer (PC).
Patients and methods: This case-control study included men with low- or favourable intermediate-risk PC in the region of Halland, with data from The National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR), Sweden, starting AS between 2008 and 2020. Cases were men who transitioned to radical treatment. For each case, 10 controls who remained in AS were selected without further matching. Triggers for transition to treatment were histopathological progression, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) progression and increases in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. We compared the probabilities for triggers between cases and controls, in 2008–2014 and 2015–2020, using logistic regression.
Results: Amongst 846 men, we identified 98 cases in 2008–2014 and 172 cases in 2015–2020. Histopathological progression was associated with transition, most strongly in the later period (2008–2014: odds ratios [OR] 6.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.69–12.80; and 2015–2020: OR 75.29, 95% CI 39.60–143.17). MRI progression was associated with transition in 2015–2020 (OR 6.38, 95% CI 2.70–15.06), whereas an increase in PSA was weakly associated with transition in the early period. The absence of triggers was associated with no transition (2008–2014: OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15–0.40, and 2015–2020: OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06–0.14). The probability of no trigger was 27% in cases 2015–2020.
Conclusion: The increase in association between histopathological trigger and transition to treatment indicates increased quality of AS. Still, amongst men treated from 2015 to 2020, 27% transitioned without any trigger.
Downloads
References
Lam TBL, MacLennan S, Willemse PPM, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG prostate cancer guideline panel consensus statements for Deferred Treatment with Curative Intent for Localised Prostate Cancer from an International Collaborative Study (DETECTIVE Study). Eur Urol. 2019;76(6):790–813. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.020
Olsson H, Nordström T, Clements M, et al. Intensity of active surveillance and transition to treatment in men with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3(5):640–647.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.05.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.05.005
Bokhorst LP, Alberts AR, Rannikko A, et al. Compliance rates with the prostate cancer research international active surveillance (PRIAS) protocol and disease reclassification in noncompliers. Eur Urol. 2015;68(5):814–821.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.012
Lundström KJ, Drevin L, Carlsson S, et al. Nationwide population based study of infections after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2014;192(4):1116–1122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.098 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.098
EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-2023_2023-06-13-141145.pdf [Internet]. [cited 23-09-2023]. Available from: https://d56bochluxqnz.cloudfront.net/documents/full-guideline/EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-2023_2023-06-13-141145.pdf
www.nccn.org.pdf [Internet]. [cited 23-09-2023]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf
Guidelines – American Urological Association [Internet]. [cited 24-11-2021]. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/guidelines-x15197
Bratt O, Carlsson S, Fransson P, et al. The Swedish national guidelines on prostate cancer, part 1: early detection, diagnostics, staging, patient support and primary management of non-metastatic disease. Scand J Urol. 2022;56(4):265–273.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2022.2094462 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2022.2094462
Luiting HB, Remmers S, Boevé ER, et al. A multivariable approach using magnetic resonance imaging to avoid a protocol-based prostate biopsy in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer—data from the international multicenter prospective PRIAS study. Eur Urol Oncol. 2022;5(6):651–658.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2022.03.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2022.03.007
Omri N, Kamil M, Alexander K, et al. Association between PSA density and pathologically significant prostate cancer: The impact of prostate volume. Prostate. 2020;80(16):1444–1449.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24078 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24078
Vickers AJ, Savage C, O’Brien MF, Lilja H. Systematic review of pretreatment prostate-specific antigen velocity and doubling time as predictors for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol [Internet]. 2016 [cited 23-04-2023]. Available from: https://ascopubs.org/doi/pdf/10.1200/JCO.2008.18.1685?role=tab
Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, et al. A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: An update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a Switch to active treatment. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):954–960.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.007
Tomic K, Berglund A, Robinson D, et al. Capture rate and representativity of The National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden. Acta Oncol Stockh Swed. 2015;54(2):158–163.
https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2014.939299 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2014.939299
NPCR [Internet]. [cited 02-12-2022]. Available from: https://statistik.incanet.se/npcr/
Van Hemelrijck M, Wigertz A, Sandin F, et al. Cohort profile: The National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden and Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 2.0. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(4):956–967.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dys068 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dys068
Van Hemelrijck M, Garmo H, Wigertz A, et al. Cohort profile update: The National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden and Prostate Cancer data Base—a refined prostate cancer trajectory. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(1):73–82.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyv305 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyv305
Ahlberg MS, Adami HO, Beckmann K, et al. PCASTt/SPCG-17-a randomised trial of active surveillance in prostate cancer: rationale and design. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e027860.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027860 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027860
Van Hemelrijck M, Ventimiglia E, Robinson D, et al. Population-based estimates of age and comorbidity specific life expectancy: a first application in Swedish males. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2022;22(1):35.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-022-01766-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-022-01766-0
Gedeborg R, Sund M, Lambe M, et al. An aggregated comorbidity measure based on history of filled drug prescriptions: development and evaluation in two separate cohorts. Epidemiol Camb Mass. 2021;32(4):607–615.
https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001358 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001358
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–383.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8
Westerberg M, Irenaeus S, Garmo H, Stattin P, Gedeborg R. Development and validation of a multi-dimensional diagnosis-based comorbidity index that improves prediction of death in men with prostate cancer: Nationwide, population-based register study. PLoS One. 2024;19(1):e0296804.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296804 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296804
Gauthier J, Wu QV, Gooley TA. Cubic splines to model relationships between continuous variables and outcomes: a guide for clinicians. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2020;55(4):675–680.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-019-0679-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-019-0679-x
STROBE [Internet]. [cited 08-10-2023]. Checklists. Available from: https://www.strobe-statement.org/checklists/
Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Makarov DV, et al. Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;67(2):233–238.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.010
Van Hemelrijck M, Ji X, Helleman J, et al. Reasons for discontinuing active surveillance: assessment of 21 centres in 12 countries in the Movember GAP3 consortium. Eur Urol. 2019;75(3):523–531. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.025
Luiting HB, Remmers S, Valdagni R, et al. What is the effect of MRI with targeted biopsies on the rate of patients discontinuing active surveillance? A reflection of the use of MRI in the PRIAS study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24(4):1048–1054.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00343-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00343-2
Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):272–277.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. Fifteen-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(17):1547–1558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2214122
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.08.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.08.014
Rajwa P, Pradere B, Quhal F, et al. Reliability of serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect prostate cancer progression during active surveillance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2021;80(5):549–563.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.05.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.05.001
Langkilde F, Masaba P, Edenbrandt L, et al. Manual prostate MRI segmentation by readers with different experience: a study of the learning progress. Eur Radiol. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10515-4
https://
Arnsrud Godtman R, Persson E, Bergengren O, et al. Surgeon volume and patient-reported urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. Population-based register study in Sweden. Scand J Urol. 2022;56(5–6):343–350.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2022.2119270 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2022.2119270
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Mats Ahlberg, Hans Garmo, Pär Stattin, Rolf Gedeborg, Christer Edlund, Lars Holmberg, Anna Bill-Axelson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica Society owns the copyright for all material published until Volume 57 (2023) unless otherwise specified. As from Volume 59 (2024) all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY licences, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
