Purpose

To validate a previously proposed prognostic metric, Total Cancer Location (TCLo) density, in a contemporary cohort of men with grade group (GG) 1 prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS).

Methods

We evaluated 123 patients who entered AS with maximum GG1 PCa at diagnostic and/or confirmatory biopsy. TCLo was defined as the total number of PCa locations identified on both biopsy sessions. TCLo density was calculated as TCLo / prostate volume [ml]. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as time from confirmatory biopsy to grade group reclassification (GGR) on repeat biopsy or prostatectomy. Optimal cut-point for TCLo density was predefined in a previously reported cohort and applied to this contemporary cohort. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analysis were used to estimate the association of predictors with PFS.

Results

During median follow-up of 7.8 years, (IQR 7.3–8.2) 34 men had GGR. Using previously defined cut-points, PFS at 5-years was 60% (95% CI: 44%–81%) vs. 89% (95% CI: 83%–96%) in men with high (≥0.06 ml−1) vs. low (<0.06 ml−1) TCLo density, and 63% (95% CI: 48%–82%) vs. 90% (95% CI: 83%–96%) in men with high (≥3) vs. low (≤2) TCLo (log-rank test: P < 0.0001, respectively). Adjusting for age, prostate volume, percent of positive cores and PSA, both higher TCLo density (HR [per 0.01 ml−1 increase]: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.05–1.33, P = 0.005) and TCLo (HR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.20–2.38, P = 0.002) were associated with shorter PFS.

Conclusion

The previously suggested prognostic value of TCLo density was confirmed in this validation cohort. TCLo alone performed similarly well. Patients with high TCLo density (≥0.06 ml−1) or TCLo (>2) were at greater risk of GGR while on AS. With external validation, these metric may help guide risk-adapted surveillance protocols.

1. Mottet N, Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, et al. EAU – EANM – ESTRO – ESUR – ISUP – SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Retrieved from: https://d56bochluxqnz.cloudfront.net/documents/full-guideline/EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP_SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-2022_2022-04-25-063938_yfos.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2022.
2. Eastham JA, Auffenberg GB, Barocas DA, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO guideline, part 1: introduction, risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management. Retrieved from: https://www.auajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1097/JU.0000000000002757. Accessed October 1, 2022.
3. Mohler JL, Srinivas S, An Y, et al. NCCN guidelines version 1.2023 prostate cancer. Retrieved from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2022.
4. AH Storås, MG Sanda, O Garin, et al. A prospective study of patient reported urinary incontinence among American, Norwegian and Spanish men 1 year after prostatectomy,Asian J Urol, 7 (2) (2020), pp. 161-169, 10.1016/j.ajur.2019.08.001

5. A Sureda, L Fumadó, M Ferrer, et al.Health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance versus radical prostatectomy, external-beam radiotherapy, prostate brachytherapy and reference population: a cross-sectional study.
   Health Qual Life Outcomes, 17 (1) (2019), p. 11, 10.1186/s12955-019-1082-4

6. JJ Tosoian, BJ Trock, P Landis, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol, 29 (16) (2011), pp. 2185-2190, 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112

7. L Klotz, D Vesprini, P Sethukavalan, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol, 33 (3) (2015), pp. 272-277, 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192

8. M Bul, X Zhu, R Valdagni, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol, 63 (4) (2013), pp. 597-603, 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005

9. S Carlsson, N Benfante, R Alvim, et al. Long-term outcomes of active surveillance for prostate cancer: the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Experience. J Urol (2019), 10.1097/JU.0000000000000713

10. G Fernández-Conejo, V Hernández, A Guijarro, et al. Prostate cancer adverse pathology reclassification in patients undergoing active surveillance in a long-term follow-up series. Prostate, 80 (2) (2020), pp. 209-213, 10.1002/pros.23933

11. KT Dinh, BA Mahal, DR Ziehr, et al. Incidence and predictors of upgrading and upstaging among 10,000 contemporary patients with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol, 194 (2) (2015), pp. 343-349, 10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.015

12. G Gandaglia, RCN van den Bergh, D Tilki, et al. How can we expand active surveillance criteria in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer without increasing the risk of misclassification? Development of a novel risk calculator. BJU Int, 122 (5) (2018), pp. 823-830, 10.1111/bju.14391

13. N Perlis, L. Klotz, Contemporary active surveillance: candidate selection, follow-up tools, and expected outcomes. Urol Clin North Am, 44 (4) (2017), pp. 565-574, 10.1016/j.ucl.2017.07.005

14. AM Erickson, S Luzzagod, A Semjonowf, et al. Cumulative cancer locations is a novel metric for predicting active surveillance outcomes: a multicenter study. Eur Urol Oncol, 1 (4) (2018), pp. 268-275

15. GH Tan, A Finelli, A Ahmad, et al. A novel predictor of clinical progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Can Urol Assoc J, 13 (8) (2019), pp. 250-255, 10.5489/cuaj.6122

16. A Adamy, DS Yee, K Matsushita, et al. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol, 185 (2) (2011), pp. 477-482, 10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.095

17. JM Whitson, SP Porten, JF Hilton, et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol, 185 (5) (2011), pp. 1656-1660, 10.1016/j.juro.2010.12.042

18. MS Soloway, CT Soloway, A Eldefrawy, et al. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol, 58 (6) (2010), pp. 831-835, 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.027

19. RC van den Bergh, S Roemeling, MJ Roobol, et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol, 55 (1) (2009), pp. 1-8, 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.007

20. M Komisarenko, N Timilshina, PO Richard, et al. Stricter active surveillance criteria for prostate cancer do not result in significantly better outcomes: a comparison of contemporary protocols. J Urol, 196 (6) (2016), pp. 1645-1650, 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.083

21. JY Leong, C Courtney Capella, S Teplitsky, et al. Impact of tumor regional involvement on active surveillance outcomes: validation of the cumulative cancer location metric in a US population. Eur Urol Focus, 6 (2) (2020), pp. 235-241, 10.1016/j.euf.2019.05.001

22. KJ Tay, RT Gupta, J Holtz, et al. mpMRI improve clinical criteria in selecting men with prostate cancer for active surveillance? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 20 (3) (2017), pp. 323-327, 10.1038/pcan.2017.20

23. B Turkbey, H Mani, O Aras, et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology, 268 (1) (2013), pp. 144-152, 10.1148/radiol.13121325

24. HU Ahmed, A El-Shater Bosaily, LC Brown, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet, 389 (10071) (2017), pp. 815-822, 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1

25. IG Schoots, MJ. Roobol. From PROMIS to PRO-MRI in primary prostate cancer diagnosis. Transl Androl Urol, 6 (3) (2017), pp. 604-607, 10.21037/tau.2017.04.35

26. L Klotz, A Loblaw, L Sugar, et al. Active surveillance magnetic resonance imaging study (ASIST): results of a randomized multicenter prospective trial. Eur Urol, 75 (2) (2019), pp. 300-309, 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.025