Active surveillance for prostate cancer: Scottish experience.

Abstract

167 Background: Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy in men worldwide with 910,000 cases registered in 2008. The prognosis for low-risk prostate cancer patients remains excellent and arguably the majority may either not require radical treatment or may benefit from deferred radical treatment. Active surveillance involves serial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) monitoring, digital rectal examinations, and periodic trans-rectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsies. Patients for active surveillance are carefully selected, counselled and actively followed-up. Radical treatment is deferred until there is evidence of biochemical, pathological or clinical disease progression. Methods: Retrospective review of prostate cancer patients enrolled on to the active surveillance program within NHS Ayrshire and Arran Hospitals. Clinical examination and PSA monitoring was undertaken 3-monthly in year 1, 4-monthly in year 2 and 6-monthly thereafter. The protocol stipulates repeat TRUS biopsies at years 1, 4, 7 and every 3 years thereafter. Results: 105 patients with low-intermediate risk prostate cancer with a median age of 68yrs (48–78yrs) were followed for a median duration of 30 months (4–152 months). The median PSA at presentation was 7ng/ml (0.5-31). Repeat biopsies were performed in 82 patients and 37% had no histological evidence of cancer. The median time to re-biopsy was 16 months (10–85 months). Of the patients who received radical treatment; 3 underwent radical prostatectomy and 23 received radical radiotherapy. The indications for radical treatment were pathological progression in 73%, PSA progression in 23% and co-existing bladder cancer in 4%. One patient died due to unrelated medical problems and one patient developed metastatic disease. Conclusions: With appropriate counselling, a significant percentage of men with low-moderate risk prostate cancer choose active surveillance. In this study, active surveillance does not appear to compromise outcomes for patients with low-intermediate risk prostate cancer. Less then 25% of patients needed radical treatment and therefore this approach appears cost-effective and avoids treatment-related morbidity.