4.7 Article

Active Surveillance Program for Prostate Cancer: An Update of the Johns Hopkins Experience

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 16, Pages 2185-2190

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Patrick C. Walsh Prostate Cancer Research Fund
  2. Prostate Cancer Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose We assessed outcomes of men with prostate cancer enrolled in active surveillance. Patients and Methods Since 1995, a total of 769 men diagnosed with prostate cancer have been followed prospectively (median follow-up, 2.7 years; range, 0.01 to 15.0 years) on active surveillance. Enrollment criteria were for very-low-risk cancers, defined by clinical stage (T1c), prostate-specific antigen density < 0.15 ng/mL, and prostate biopsy findings (Gleason score <= 6, two or fewer cores with cancer, and <= 50% cancer involvement of any core). Curative intervention was recommended on disease reclassification on the basis of biopsy criteria. The primary outcome was survival free of intervention, and secondary outcomes were rates of disease reclassification and exit from the program. Outcomes were compared between men who did and did not meet very-low-risk criteria. Results The median survival free of intervention was 6.5 years (range, 0.0 to 15.0 years) after diagnosis, and the proportions of men remaining free of intervention after 2, 5, and 10 years of follow-up were 81%, 59%, and 41%, respectively. Overall, 255 men (33.2%) underwent intervention at a median of 2.2 years (range, 0.6 to 10.2 years) after diagnosis; 188 men (73.7%) underwent intervention on the basis of disease reclassification on biopsy. The proportions of men who underwent curative intervention (P = .026) or had biopsy reclassification (P < .001) were significantly lower in men who met enrollment criteria than in those who did not. There were no prostate cancer deaths. Conclusion For carefully selected men, active surveillance with curative intent appears to be a safe alternative to immediate intervention. Limiting surveillance to very-low-risk patients may reduce the frequency of adverse outcomes. J Clin Oncol 29: 2185-2190. (C) 2011 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available