Reasons for Discontinuing Active Surveillance: Assessment of 21 Centres in 12 Countries in the Movember GAP3 Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Careful assessment of the reasons for discontinuation of active surveillance (AS) is required for men with prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: Using Movember's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance initiative (GAP3) database, we report on reasons for AS discontinuation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We compared data from 10296 men on AS from 21 centres across 12 countries. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cumulative incidence methods were used to estimate the cumulative incidence rates of AS discontinuation. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: During 5-yr follow-up, 27.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.4-28.6%) men showed signs of disease progression, 12.8% (95% CI: 12.0-13.6%) converted to active treatment without evidence of progression, 1.7% (95% CI: 1.5-2.0%) continued to watchful waiting, and 1.7% (95% CI: 1.4-2.1%) died from other causes. Of the 7049 men who remained on AS, 2339 had follow-up for >5yr, 4561 had follow-up for <5yr, and 149 were lost to follow-up. Cumulative incidence of progression was 27.5% (95% CI: 26.4-28.6%) at 5yr and 38.2% (95% CI: 36.7-39.9%) at 10yr. A limitation is that not all centres were included due to limited information on the reason for discontinuation and limited follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our descriptive analyses of current AS practices worldwide showed that 43.6% of men drop out of AS during 5-yr follow-up, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Improvements in selection tools for AS are thus needed to correctly allocate men with PCa to AS, which will also reduce discontinuation due to conversion to active treatment without evidence of disease progression. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our assessment of a worldwide database of men with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) shows that 43.6% drop out of AS within 5yr, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Better tools are needed to select and monitor men with PCa as part of AS.

Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer.

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Active surveillance for prostate cancer is gaining increasing acceptance for low risk prostate cancer. Focal therapy is an emerging tissue preservation strategy that aims for treat only areas of cancer. Early phase trials have shown that side-effects can be significantly reduced using focal therapy. There is significant uncertainty in both active surveillance and focal therapy. This consensus group paper provides a road-map for clinical practice and research for both tissue-preserving strategies in the areas of patient population, tools for risk stratification and cancer localisation, treatment interventions as well as comparators and outcome measures in future comparative trials. OBJECTIVE: To reach consensus on key issues for clinical practice and future research in active surveillance and focal therapy in managing localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A group of expert urologists, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and computer scientists from North America and Europe met to discuss issues in patient population, interventions, comparators and outcome measures to use in both tissue-preserving strategies of active surveillance and focal therapy. Break-out sessions were formed to provide agreement or highlight areas of disagreement on individual topics which were then collated by a writing group into statements that formed the basis of this report and agreed upon by the whole Transatlantic Consensus Group. RESULTS: The Transatlantic group propose that emerging diagnostic tools such as precision imaging and transperineal prostate mapping biopsy can improve prostate cancer care. These tools should be integrated into prostate cancer management and research so that better risk stratification and more effective treatment allocation can be applied. The group envisaged a process of care in which active surveillance, focal therapy, and radical treatments lie on a continuum of complementary therapies for men with a range of disease grades and burdens, rather than being applied in the mutually exclusive and competitive way they are now. CONCLUSION: The changing landscape of prostate cancer epidemiology requires the medical community to re-evaluate the entire prostate cancer diagnostic and treatment pathway in order to minimize harms resulting from over-diagnosis and over-treatment. Precise risk stratification at every point in this pathway is required alongside paradigm shifts in our thinking about what constitutes cancer in the prostate.