Risk-Based Selection for Active Surveillance: Results of the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) Initiative.

PURPOSE: We sought to identify and validate known predictors of disease reclassification at 1 or 4 years to support risk-based selection of patients suitable for active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An individual participant data meta-analysis using data from 25 established cohorts within the Movember Foundations GAP3 Consortium. In total 5,530 men were included. Disease reclassification was defined as any increase in Gleason grade group at biopsy at 1 and 4 years. Associations were estimated using random effect logistic regression models. The discriminative ability of combinations of predictors was assessed in an internal-external validation procedure using the AUC curve. RESULTS: Among the 5,570 men evaluated at 1 year, we found 815 reclassifications to higher Gleason grade group at biopsy (pooled reclassification rate 13%, range 0% to 31%). Important predictors were age, prostate specific antigen, prostate volume, T-stage and number of biopsy cores with prostate cancer. Among the 1,515 men evaluated at 4 years, we found 205 reclassifications (pooled reclassification rates 14%, range 3% to 40%), with similar predictors. The average areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve at internal-external validation were 0.68 and 0.61 for 1-year and 4-year reclassification, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Disease reclassification occurs typically in 13% to 14% of biopsies at 1 and 4 years after the start of active surveillance with substantial between-study heterogeneity. Current guidelines might be extended by considering prostate volume to improve individualized selection for active surveillance. Additional predictors are needed to improve patient selection for active surveillance.

Consistent Biopsy Quality and Gleason Grading Within the Global Active Surveillance Global Action Plan 3 Initiative: A Prerequisite for Future Studies.

Within the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) initiative, 25 centers across the globe collaborate to standardize active surveillance (AS) protocols for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). A centralized PCa AS database, comprising data of more than 15000 patients worldwide, was created. Comparability of the histopathology between the different cohorts was assessed by a centralized pathology review of 445 biopsies from 15 GAP3 centers. Grade group 1 (Gleason score 6) in 85% and grade group ≥2 (Gleason score ≥7) in 15% showed 89% concordance at review with moderate agreement (κ=0.56). Average biopsy core length was similar among the analyzed cohorts. Recently established highly adverse pathologies, including cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma, were observed in 3.6% of the reviewed biopsies. In conclusion, the centralized pathology review of 445 biopsies revealed comparable histopathology among the 15 GAP3 centers with a low frequency of high-risk features. This enables further data analyses-without correction-toward uniform global AS guidelines for men with low-risk PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) initiative combines data from 15000 men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) across the globe to standardize active surveillance protocols. Histopathology review confirmed that the histopathology was consistent with low-risk PCa in most men and comparable between different centers.

The Movember Foundation's GAP3 cohort: a profile of the largest global prostate cancer active surveillance database to date.

OBJECTIVES: The Movember Foundation launched the Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) initiative to create a global consensus on the selection and monitoring of men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS). The aim of this study is to present data on inclusion and follow-up for AS in this unique global AS database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2014 and 2016, the database was created by combining patient data from 25 established AS cohorts worldwide (USA, Canada, Australasia, UK and Europe). Data on a total of 15 101 patients were included. Descriptive statistics were used to report patients' clinical and demographic characteristics at the time of PCa diagnosis, clinical follow-up, discontinuation of AS and subsequent treatment. Cumulative incidence curves were used to report discontinuation rates over time. RESULTS: At diagnosis, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) patient age was 65 (60-70) years and the median prostate-specific antigen level was 5.4 (4.0-7.3) ng/mL. Most patients had clinical stage T1 disease (71.8%), a biopsy Gleason score of 6 (88.8%) and one tumour-positive biopsy core (60.3%). Patients on AS had a median follow-up time of 2.2 (1.0-5.0) years. After 5, 10 and 15 years of follow-up, respectively, 58%, 39% and 23% of patients were still on AS. The current version of GAP3 has limited data on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), quality of life and genomic testing. CONCLUSIONS: GAP3 is the largest worldwide collaboration integrating patient data from men with PCa on AS. The results will allow individual patients and clinicians to have greater confidence in the personalized decision to either delay or proceed with active treatment. Longer follow-up and the evaluation of MRI, new genomic markers and patient-related outcomes will result in even more valuable data and eventually in better patient outcomes.

Expert consensus document: Semantics in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer - results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure.

Active surveillance (AS) is broadly described as a management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer, but semantic heterogeneity exists in both the literature and in guidelines. To address this issue, a panel of leading prostate cancer specialists in the field of AS participated in a consensus-forming project using a modified Delphi method to reach international consensus on definitions of terms related to this management option. An iterative three-round sequence of online questionnaires designed to address 61 individual items was completed by each panel member. Consensus was considered to be reached if ≥70% of the experts agreed on a definition. To facilitate a common understanding among all experts involved and resolve potential ambiguities, a face-to-face consensus meeting was held between Delphi survey rounds two and three. Convenience sampling was used to construct the panel of experts. In total, 12 experts from Australia, France, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, the UK, Canada and the USA participated. By the end of the Delphi process, formal consensus was achieved for 100% (n = 61) of the terms and a glossary was then developed. Agreement between international experts has been reached on relevant terms and subsequent definitions regarding AS for patients with localized prostate cancer. This standard terminology could support multidisciplinary communication, reduce the extent of variations in clinical practice and optimize clinical decision making.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines.

In the past decade active surveillance (AS) of men with localized prostate cancer has become an increasingly popular management option, and a range of clinical guidelines have been published on this topic. Existing guidelines regarding AS for prostate cancer vary widely, but predominantly state that the most suitable patients for AS are those with pretreatment clinical stage T1c or T2 tumours, serum PSA levels <10 ng/ml, biopsy Gleason scores of 6 or less, a maximum of one or two tumour-positive biopsy core samples and/or a maximum of 50% of cancer per core sample. Following initiation of an AS programme, most guidelines recommend serial serum PSA measurements, digital rectal examinations and surveillance biopsies to check for and identify pathological indications of tumour progression. Definitions of disease reclassification and progression differ among guidelines and multiple criteria for initiation of definitive treatment are proposed. The variety of descriptions of criteria for clinically insignificant prostate cancer indicates a lack of consensus on optimal AS and intervention thresholds. A single set of guidelines are needed in order to reduce variations in clinical practice and to optimize clinical decision-making. To enable truly evidence-based guidelines, further research that combines existing evidence, while also gathering information from more long-term studies is needed.

Risk factors for complicated grief in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Older adults grieving the death of a spouse have been found to have a higher risk of complicated grief compared with younger adults. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to find out whether personal characteristics of the patient and the bereaved partner, or characteristics of the patient's illness, end-of-life care, and the nature of death are risk factors for complicated grief in older adults. METHODS: We performed a nested case-control study within the Rotterdam Study. We selected 100 couples of which one person had deceased and the other person experienced "complicated grief," and 100 control couples of which one person had deceased and the other person experienced "normal grief." Complicated grief was assessed with a 17-item Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG). Determinants were assessed using several sources of information that were available for all participants of the Rotterdam Study. Additionally, medical files of the deceased were manually screened. Logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Only depression at baseline was significantly associated with complicated grief. Bereaved partners with depression at baseline had a higher risk of complicated grief compared to bereaved partners without depression (OR=3.48; 95% CI=1.40-8.68). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that complicated grief in older adults is not clearly related to the circumstances of dying of the deceased partner. Preexisting conditions such as depression seem to be more important in explaining the occurrence of complicated grief.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification.

CONTEXT: Active surveillance (AS) is an important strategy to reduce prostate cancer overtreatment. However, the optimal criteria for eligibility and predictors of progression while on AS are debated. OBJECTIVE: To review primary data on markers, genetic factors, and risk stratification for patient selection and predictors of progression during AS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to April 2014 for original articles on biomarkers and risk stratification for AS. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Patient factors associated with AS outcomes in some studies include age, race, and family history. Multiple studies provide consistent evidence that a lower percentage of free prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a higher Prostate Health Index (PHI), a higher PSA density (PSAD), and greater biopsy core involvement at baseline predict a greater risk of progression. During follow-up, serial measurements of PHI and PSAD, as well as repeat biopsy results, predict later biopsy progression. While some studies have suggested a univariate relationship between urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and transmembrane protease, serine 2-v-ets avian erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog gene fusion (TMPRSS2:ERG) with adverse biopsy features, these markers have not been consistently shown to independently predict AS outcomes. No conclusive data support the use of genetic tests in AS. Limitations of these studies include heterogeneous definitions of progression and limited follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: There is a growing body of literature on patient characteristics, biopsy features, and biomarkers with potential utility in AS. More data are needed on practical applications such as combining these tests into multivariable clinical algorithms and long-term outcomes to further improve AS in the future. PATIENT SUMMARY: Several PSA-based tests (free PSA, PHI, PSAD) and the extent of cancer on biopsy can help to stratify the risk of progression during active surveillance. Investigation of several other markers is under way.

Estimating the potential life-shortening effect of continuous sedation until death: a comparison between two approaches.

CONTEXT: In some cases, physicians estimate that continuous sedation until death may have a life shortening effect. The accuracy of these estimations can be questioned. AIM: The aim of this study is to compare two approaches to estimate the potential life-shortening effect of continuous sedation until death. METHODS: In 2008, 370 Dutch physicians filled out a questionnaire and reported on their last patient who received continuous sedation until death. The potential life-shortening effect of continuous sedation was estimated through a direct approach (question: Did continuous sedation, according to your estimation,hasten the patient's death? If yes: by how much time?)and an indirect approach (estimated life expectancy minus duration of sedation). The intrarater agreement between both approaches was determined with a weighted κ. RESULTS: According to the direct approach, sedation might have had a life-shortening effect in 51% of the cases and according to the indirect approach in 84%.The intrarater agreement between both approaches was fair (weighted κ=0.38). In 10% of all cases, the direct approach yielded higher estimates of the extent to which life had been shortened; in 58% of the cases, the indirect approach yielded higher estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The results show a discrepancy between different approaches to estimate the potential life shortening effect of continuous sedation until death.

The experiences of relatives with the practice of palliative sedation: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Guidelines about palliative sedation typically include recommendations to protect the well-being of relatives. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to systematically review evidence on the experiences of relatives with the practice of palliative sedation. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched for empirical studies on relatives' experiences with palliative sedation. We investigated relatives' involvement in the decision-making and sedation processes, whether they received adequate information and support, and relatives' emotions. RESULTS: Of the 564 studies identified, 39 were included. The studies (30 quantitative, six qualitative, and three mixed methods) were conducted in 16 countries; three studies were based on relatives' reports, 26 on physicians' and nurses' proxy reports, seven on medical records, and three combined different sources. The 39 studies yielded a combined total of 8791 respondents or studied cases. Caregivers involved relatives in the decision making in 69%-100% of all cases (19 quantitative studies), and in 60%-100% of all cases, relatives were reported to have received adequate information (five quantitative studies). Only two quantitative studies reported on relatives' involvement in the provision of sedation. Despite the fact that the majority of relatives were reported to be comfortable with the use of palliative sedation (seven quantitative studies, four qualitative studies), several studies found that relatives were distressed by the use of sedation (five quantitative studies, five qualitative studies). No studies reported specifically about the support provided to the relatives. CONCLUSION: Relatives' experiences with palliative sedation are mainly studied from the perspective of proxies, mostly professional caregivers. The majority of relatives seems to be comfortable with the use of palliative sedation; however, they may experience substantial distress by the use of sedation.