Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly utilized for low-risk prostate cancers, to delay or avoid treatment.
To (1) describe uptake and surveillance intensity of real-world use of AS and compare with national guidelines, and (2) describe transitions from conservative to curative treatment by different indications of disease progression.
A population-based cohort study of men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer, in Stockholm County, Sweden, during 2008-2017. Follow-up was up to 10yr, with a median of 3.5yr.
Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and biopsies. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios of starting curative treatment.
A total of 6021 men with low-risk prostate cancer were included in the analysis; 3116 (52%) had AS recorded as the intended primary management (AS cohort). During 1, 2, and 3yr after diagnosis, the frequencies of at least one PSA test were 90%, 92%, and 88%, respectively, and those of postdiagnostic surveillance biopsies were 42%, 19% and 18%, respectively. During surveillance, 13% of men in the AS cohort were upgraded on rebiopsy, with Gleason upgrading being the strongest factor for starting curative treatment. One limitation is the generalizability to other populations because of differences between surveillance protocols and clinical settings.
Our results show that AS is underutilized and that monitoring differs from current guidelines. Optimization of AS protocols is important in order to increase adherence and avoid overtreatment.
Active surveillance has the potential to reduce overtreatment and avoid treatment-related side effects. Our results show that few men receive the recommended monitoring.
European urology oncology. 2019 Jun 21 [Epub ahead of print]
Henrik Olsson, Tobias Nordström, Mark Clements, Henrik Grönberg, Anna Wallerstedt Lantz, Martin Eklund
Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: ., Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd’s Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden., Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden., Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Urology, Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Sweden.