Time trends for the use of active surveillance and deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer in Sweden: a nationwide study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.40123Keywords:
Prostate cancer, active surveillance, deferred treatment, nationwide, trend analysisAbstract
Objective: Active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low-risk and some favourable intermediate-risk prostate cancers, but criteria for AS and deferred treatment have changed over time. We assessed time trends for the use of AS and deferred treatment.
Material and methods: Nationwide Swedish register study of 76,191 men diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer from 2008 to 2020. This study presents the proportion of men starting on AS, their clinical characteristics and proportion having deferred treatment. Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios for deferred treatment. Subgroup analyses were performed for men < 60 years with Charlson Comorbidity Index 0.
Results: Overall use of AS increased from 2008–2010 to 2017–2020: any low-risk: 40% to 81%, very low-risk disease: 57% to 91%, other low-risk: 37% to 77% and intermediate-risk: 16% to 20%. The relative increase in the use of AS in men < 60 years with Charlson Comorbidity Index 0 was similar to, or greater than, the increase overall. A total of 28,211 men started on AS. The crude proportions of men receiving deferred treatment were relatively stable over time; 2017–2020: very low-risk disease 8%, other low-risk 16% and intermediate-risk 23%. After adjustment for clinical characteristics, deferred treatment within 2 years decreased over time for very low-risk, was stable for other low-risk and increased for intermediate-risk cancer.
Conclusions: The use of AS greatly increased over time, not least amongst younger healthy men, whereas the use of deferred treatment was relatively stable. AS has been increasingly accepted as a safe approach for localised, favourable-risk prostate cancer.
Downloads
References
Parker C. Active surveillance: towards a new paradigm in the management of early prostate cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2004;5(2):101–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(04)01384-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(04)01384-1
Kinsella N, Stattin P, Cahill D, et al. Factors influencing men’s choice of and adherence to active aurveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a mixed-method systematic review. Eur Urol. 2018;74(3):261–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.02.026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.02.026
Aus G, Abbou CC, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2005;48(4):546–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.06.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.06.001
Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.039 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.039
Leslie SW, Soon-Sutton TL, Sajjad H, et al. Prostate cancer. Treasure Island, Florida, StatPearls Publishing; 2022.
Moschini M, Carroll PR, Eggener SE, et al. Low-risk prostate cancer: identification, management, and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.009
Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE, et al. Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) ≤6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes? Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(9):1346–1352. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182556dcd DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182556dcd
European Association of Urology. EAU – EANM – ESTRO – ESUR – ISUP – SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Amsterdam; 2023. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer [cited 9th january 2024]
Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Curnyn C, et al. Uptake of active surveillance for very-low-risk prostate cancer in Sweden. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(10):1393–1398. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3600 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3600
Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom? J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(32):8165–8169. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.03.3134 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.03.3134
Cooperberg MR, Meeks W, Fang R, et al. Time trends and variation in the use of active surveillance for management of low-risk prostate cancer in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(3):e231439-e. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.1439 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.1439
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
Hagel E, Garmo H, Bill-Axelson A, et al. PCBaSe Sweden: a register-based resource for prostate cancer research. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2009;43(5):342–349. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365590903024577 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/00365590903024577
Tomic K, Berglund A, Robinson D, et al. Capture rate and representativity of The National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(2):158–163. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2014.939299 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2014.939299
National guidelines for prostate cancer. Sweden; 2023. Available from: https://kunskapsbanken.cancercentrum.se/diagnoser/prostatacancer/vardprogram/primar-behandling-av-prostatacancer-utan-spridning/. [cited 4 february 2024]
Sundararajan V, Henderson T, Perry C, et al. New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(12):1288–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.012
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
Loeb S, Byrne N, Makarov DV, et al. Use of conservative management for low-risk prostate cancer in the Veterans affairs integrated health care system from 2005–2015. JAMA. 2018;319(21):2231–2233. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.5616 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.5616
Timilshina N, Komisarenko M, Martin LJ, et al. Factors associated with discontinuation of active surveillance among men with low-risk prostate cancer: a population-based study. J Urol. 2021;206(4):903–913. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001903 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001903
Weerakoon M, Papa N, Lawrentschuk N, et al. The current use of active surveillance in an Australian cohort of men: a pattern of care analysis from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry. BJU Int. 2015;115(S5):50–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13049 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13049
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
van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K, et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2008;54(6):1297–1305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.02.039 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.02.039
Remmers S, Helleman J, Nieboer D, et al. Active surveillance for men younger than 60 years or with intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer. Descriptive Analyses of Clinical Practice in the Movember GAP3 Initiative. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;41:126–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.05.012
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
Beyer K, Straten V, Remmers S, et al. Secondary treatment for men with localized prostate cancer: a pooled analysis of PRIAS and ERSPC-Rotterdam data within the PIONEER data platform. J Pers Med. 2022;12(5):751. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12050751 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12050751
Ahlberg MS, Adami H-O, 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
Cazzaniga W, Ventimiglia E, Alfano M, et al. Mini review on the use of clinical cancer registers for prostate cancer: the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden. Front Med. 2019;6:51. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2019.00051 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2019.00051
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Jovana Maljkovic, Anna Bill-Axelson, Hampus Hållberg, Anders Berglund, Pär Stattin, Ola Bratt
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As from Volume 59 (2024) all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY license, 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.
