TY - JOUR
T1 - Has Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer Become Safer? Lessons Learned from a Global Clinical Registry
AU - Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) consortium
AU - Bangma, Chris
AU - Doan, Paul
AU - Zhu, Lin
AU - Remmers, Sebastiaan
AU - Nieboer, Daan
AU - Helleman, Jozien
AU - Roobol, Monique J.
AU - Sugimoto, Mikio
AU - Chung, Byung Ha
AU - Lee, Lui Shiong
AU - Frydenberg, Mark
AU - Klotz, Laurence
AU - Peacock, Michael
AU - Perry, Antoinette
AU - Bjartell, Anders
AU - Rannikko, Antti
AU - Van Hemelrijck, Mieke
AU - Dasgupta, Prokar
AU - Moore, Caroline
AU - Trock, Bruce J.
AU - Pavlovich, Christian
AU - Steyerberg, Ewout
AU - Carroll, Peter
AU - Koo, Kyo Chul
AU - Hayen, Andrew
AU - Thompson, James
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PY - 2025/4/1
Y1 - 2025/4/1
N2 - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Active surveillance (AS) has evolved into a widely applied treatment strategy for many men around the world with low-risk prostate cancer (or in selected cases intermediate-risk disease). Here, we report on the safety and acceptability of AS, and treatment outcomes for low- and intermediate-risk tumours over time in 14 623 men with follow-up of over 6 yr. METHODS: Clinical data from 26 999 men on AS from 25 cohorts in 15 countries have been collected in an international database from 2000 onwards. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Across our predefined four time periods of 4 yr each (covering the period 2000-2016), there was no significant change in overall survival (OS). However, metastasis-free survival (MFS) rates have improved since the second period and were excellent (>99%). Treatment-free survival rates for earlier periods showed a slightly more rapid shift to radical treatment. Over time, there was a constant proportion of 5% of men for whom anxiety was registered as the reason for treatment alteration. There was, however, also a subset of 10-15% in whom treatment was changed, for which no apparent reason was available. In a subset of men (10-15%), tumour progression was the trigger for treatment. In men who opted for radical treatment, surgery was the most common treatment modality. In those men who underwent radical treatment, 90% were free from biochemical recurrence at 5 yr after treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our study confirms that AS was a safe management option over the full duration in this large multicentre cohort with long-term follow-up, given the 84.1% OS and 99.4% MFS at 10 yr. The probability of treatment at 10 yr was 20% in men with initial low-risk tumours and 31% in men with intermediate-risk tumours. New diagnostic modalities may improve the acceptability of follow-up using individual risk assessments, while safely broadening the use of AS in higher-risk tumours. PATIENT SUMMARY: Active surveillance (AS) has evolved into a widely applied treatment strategy for many men with prostate cancer around the world. In this report, we show the long-term safety of following AS for men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Our study confirms AS as a safe management option for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. New diagnostic modalities may improve the acceptability of follow-up using individual risk assessments, while safely broadening the use of AS in higher-risk tumours.
AB - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Active surveillance (AS) has evolved into a widely applied treatment strategy for many men around the world with low-risk prostate cancer (or in selected cases intermediate-risk disease). Here, we report on the safety and acceptability of AS, and treatment outcomes for low- and intermediate-risk tumours over time in 14 623 men with follow-up of over 6 yr. METHODS: Clinical data from 26 999 men on AS from 25 cohorts in 15 countries have been collected in an international database from 2000 onwards. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Across our predefined four time periods of 4 yr each (covering the period 2000-2016), there was no significant change in overall survival (OS). However, metastasis-free survival (MFS) rates have improved since the second period and were excellent (>99%). Treatment-free survival rates for earlier periods showed a slightly more rapid shift to radical treatment. Over time, there was a constant proportion of 5% of men for whom anxiety was registered as the reason for treatment alteration. There was, however, also a subset of 10-15% in whom treatment was changed, for which no apparent reason was available. In a subset of men (10-15%), tumour progression was the trigger for treatment. In men who opted for radical treatment, surgery was the most common treatment modality. In those men who underwent radical treatment, 90% were free from biochemical recurrence at 5 yr after treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our study confirms that AS was a safe management option over the full duration in this large multicentre cohort with long-term follow-up, given the 84.1% OS and 99.4% MFS at 10 yr. The probability of treatment at 10 yr was 20% in men with initial low-risk tumours and 31% in men with intermediate-risk tumours. New diagnostic modalities may improve the acceptability of follow-up using individual risk assessments, while safely broadening the use of AS in higher-risk tumours. PATIENT SUMMARY: Active surveillance (AS) has evolved into a widely applied treatment strategy for many men with prostate cancer around the world. In this report, we show the long-term safety of following AS for men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Our study confirms AS as a safe management option for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. New diagnostic modalities may improve the acceptability of follow-up using individual risk assessments, while safely broadening the use of AS in higher-risk tumours.
KW - Active surveillance
KW - Global registry
KW - Long-term outcome
KW - Prostate cancer
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105001970689
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105001970689#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1016/j.euo.2024.07.003
DO - 10.1016/j.euo.2024.07.003
M3 - Article
C2 - 39025687
AN - SCOPUS:105001970689
SN - 2588-9311
VL - 8
SP - 324
EP - 337
JO - European Urology Oncology
JF - European Urology Oncology
IS - 2
ER -