Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose To report on long-term outcomes of patients treated with active surveillance (AS) for localized prostate cancer (PCa) in the daily routine setting. Methods HAROW (2008–2013) was a non-interventional, health service research study about the management of localized PCa in the community setting, with 86% of the study centers being office-based urologists. A follow-up examination of all patients who opted for AS as primary treatment was carried out. Overall, cancer-specific, and metastasis-free survival, as well as discontinuation rates, were determined. Results Of 329 patients, 62.9% had very-low- and 21.3% low-risk tumours. The median follow-up was 7.7 years (IQR 4.7–9.1). Twenty-eight patients (8.5%) died unrelated to PCa, of whom 19 were under AS or watchful waiting (WW). Additionally, seven patients (2.1%) developed metastasis. The estimated 10-year overall and metastasis-free survival was 86% (95% CI 81.7–90.3) and 97% (95% CI 94.6–99.3), respectively. One hundred eighty-seven patients (56.8%) discontinued AS changing to invasive treatment: 104 radical prostatectomies (RP), 55 radiotherapies (RT), and 28 hormonal treatments (HT). Another 50 patients switched to WW. Finally, 37.4% remained alive without invasive therapy (22.2% AS and 15.2% WW). Intervention-free survival differed between the risk groups: 47.8% in the very-low-, 33.8% in the low- and 34.6% in the intermediate-/high-risk-group ( p = 0.008). On multivariable analysis, PSA-density ≥ 0.2 ng/ml 2 was significantly predictive for receiving invasive treatment (HR 2.55; p = 0.001). Conclusion Even in routine care, AS can be considered a safe treatment option. Our results might encourage office-based urologists regarding the implementation of AS and to counteract possible concerns against this treatment option.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Herden et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: