Objectives: To evaluate clinical predictors of disease reclassification or progression (DR/P) in prostate cancer patients elected to active surveillance (AS). Material and Methods: Patients were assessed on the basis of DR/P criteria. Predictors of DR/P were evaluated by multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards. Results: The median DR/P free time was 16.5 months. DR/P was detected in 30 out of 84 cases (35.7%). In DR/P cases, the median prostate volume (PV) was significantly lower (34.7 vs. 42.7 ml) and the percentage of cases with 2 or 3 vs. 1 initial biopsy positive cores (BPC) was significantly higher (36.7 vs. 7.4%). The multivariate logistic regression model showed that PV (OR 0.9; p = 0.021) and initial n >1 BPC (OR 9.8; p = 0.001) were independent predictors of DR/P. By Cox multivariate proportional hazards, only n >1 BPC predicted early DR/P (hazard ratio 3.1; p = 0.003). Conclusions: In a contemporary cohort of patients elected to AS, independent factors stratifying the risk of DR/P were PV and initial BPC, which also predicted early DR/P. In patients elected to AS, the identification of risk factors of DR/P require early re-biopsy. Confirmatory studies are required.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Low-risk, Active surveillance, Tumour grade, Disease reclassification, Disease progression
1.
D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ, Wein A: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969-974.
2.
Dahabreh IJ, Chung M, Balk EM, YU WW, Mathew P, Lau J, Ip S: Active surveillance in men with localized prostate cancer: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:582-590.
3.
Morash C, Tey R, Agbassi C, Klotz L, McGowan T, Srigley J, Evans A: Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: guideline recommendations. Can Urol Assoc J 2015;9:171-178.
4.
Moyer VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:120-134.
5.
Augustin H, Mayerhofer K, Seles M, Pummer K: Is there a role for active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer? Urol Int 2015;95:125-131.
6.
Romero-Otero J, García-Gómez B, Duarte-Ojeda JM, Rodríguez-Antolín A, Vilaseca A, Carlsson SV, Touijer KA: Active surveillance for prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2016;23:211-218.
7.
Filson CP, Marks LS, Litwin MS: Expectant management for men with early stage prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:265-282.
8.
Singer EA, Kaushal A, Turkbey B, Couvillon A, Pinto PA, Parnes HL: Active surveillance for prostate cancer: past, present and future. Curr Opin Oncol 2012;24:243-250.
9.
Dall'Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, Carroll PR, Carter HB, Cooperberg MR, Freedland SJ, Klotz LH, Parker C, Soloway MS: Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012;62:976-983.
10.
Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Klotz LH, Røder MA, Berg KD, Iversen P: Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer - a systematic review. J Surg Oncol 2014;109:830-835.
11.
Loeb S, Bruinsma SM, Nicholson J, Briganti A, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Carlsson SV, Roobol MJ: Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur Urol 2015;67:619-626.
12.
Montironi R, Hammond EH, Lin DW, Gore JL, Srigley JR, Samaratunga H, et al: Consensus statement with recommendations on active surveillance inclusion criteria and definition of progression in men with localized prostate cancer: the critical role of the pathologist. Virchows Arch 2014;465:623-628.
13.
Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A: Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:126-131.
14.
Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, Stranne J, Hugosson J: Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol 2013;63:101-107.
15.
Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K, Mohammed K, Woode-Amissah R, Horwich A, Huddart RA, Dearnaley DP, Parker CC: Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2013;64:981-987.
16.
Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, Feng Z, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Carter HB: Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:2185-2190.
17.
Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Stauf F, Cooperberg MR, Meng MV, Kane CJ, Perez N, Master VA, Carroll PR: Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008;112:2664-2670.
18.
Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF, Reese AC, Zaid HB, Porten SP, Shinohara K, Meng MV, Greene KL, Carroll PR: Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:228-234.
19.
Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, Acosta K, Kava B, Manoharan M: Careful selection and close monitoring on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 2010;58:831-935.
20.
Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Zhu X, Rannikko A, Vasarainen H, Bangma CH, Schröder FH, Roobol MJ: Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012;110:1672-1677.
21.
Ercole B, Marietti SR, Fine J, Albertsen PC: Outcomes following active surveillance of men with localized prostate cancer diagnosed in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2008;180:1336-1339; discussion 1340-1341.
22.
Thomsen FB, Røder MA, Hvarness H, Iversen P, Brasso K: Active surveillance can reduce overtreatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dan Med J 2013;60:A4575.
23.
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee: The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1228-1242.
24.
Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI: Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int 2013;111:753-760.
25.
Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, Nelson JB, Egevad L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Vickers AJ, Parwani AV, Reuter VE, Fine SW, Eastham JA, Wiklund P, Han M, Reddy CA, Ciezki JP, Nyberg T, Klein EA: A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol 2016;69:428-435.
26.
Porcaro AB, Novella G, Molinari A, Terrin A, Minja A, De Marco V, Martignoni G, Brunelli M, Cerruto MA, Curti P, Cavalleri S, Artibani W: Prostate volume index and chronic inflammation of the prostate type IV with respect to the risk of prostate cancer. Urol Int 2015;94:270-285.
27.
Porcaro AB, Novella G, Cacciamani G, De Marchi D, Corsi P, De Luyk N, Bizzotto L, Processali T, Cerasuolo M, Tamanini I, Cerruto MA, Brunelli M, Siracusano S, Artibani W: Prostate volume index associates with a decreased risk of prostate cancer: results of a large cohort of patients elected to a first biopsy set. Urol Int 2016, Epub ahead of print.
28.
Porcaro AB, Siracusano S, De Luyk N, Corsi P, Sebben M, Tafuri A, Bizzotto L, Tamanini I, Inverardi D, Cerruto MA, Martignoni G, Brunelli M, Artibani W: Low-risk prostate cancer and tumor upgrading to higher patterns in the surgical specimen. Analysis of clinical factors predicting tumor upgrading to higher Gleason patterns in a contemporary series of patients who have been evaluated according to the modified Gleason score grading system. Urol Int 2016;97:32-41.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.