Purpose of review

Active surveillance is a management strategy for early-stage prostate cancer designed to balance early detection of aggressive disease and overtreatment of indolent disease. We evaluate recently reported outcomes and discuss the potentially most important endpoints for such an approach.

Recent findings

The past 2 years have seen the publication of two trials of watchful waiting versus immediate treatment and updates of multiple active surveillance cohorts for men with early-stage prostate cancer. The watchful waiting trials demonstrated a small potential mortality benefit to immediate treatment when applied to all risk levels (6% absolute difference at 15 years), emphasizing the importance of a risk-adapted strategy. In reported active surveillance cohorts, prostate cancer death and metastasis remain rare events. Intermediate outcomes such as progression to treatment and upgrading/upstaging on final disease appear consistent among cohorts, but must be interpreted with caution when compared with historical controls of immediate treatment because of potential selection bias.

Summary

The safety of active surveillance has been reinforced by recent reports. Accumulation of additional data on men with intermediate risk cancer and development and validation of new biomarkers of risk will allow refined and, likely, expanded use of this approach.

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is a legitimate construct for evaluating treatment and its side effects. Recently, predictive value of HRQOL on survival also has been of interest. In light of the longer survival in patients with prostate cancer and importance of quality of life, we seek to evaluate the association between HRQOL and survival using traditional and novel techniques. Patients from CaPSURE (Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor) who were treated within 6 months of diagnosis and had pre-treatment and sufficient post-treatment follow-up information constituted the study population. A sample consisting of 2,899 patients met the study criteria. SF-36 domains were used to measure HRQOL outcomes. Categorical variables were created for HRQOL based on the baseline distribution of the lower 10th percentile and the remainder of the patients. Association between HRQOL and survival (defined by all-cause mortality) in patients with prostate cancer was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models controlling for age at diagnosis, type of treatment received, clinical risk classification, and number of comorbidities. Sequential bootstrap resampling was implemented to evaluate stability of the model. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were fit using various time points over the course of follow-up. In the analysis looking at association of HRQOL baseline measurements, higher levels of physical function and general health were significantly associated with better survival (HR 0.49 95% CI 0.32–0.78 and HR 0.51 95% CI 0.35–0.75, respectively). Post-treatment analysis demonstrated similar results. In time-dependent analysis, higher levels of physical function, role physical, and general health were significantly associated with better survival (HR ranged from 0.57 to 0.65). In addition, analysis looking at change in HRQOL scores demonstrated an association between higher scores on physical function, role physical, vitality, social function, and general health and longer survival (HR ranged from 0.56 to 0.63). This study demonstrated that several domains of HRQOL were significantly associated with survival in a large group of patients with localized prostate cancer. This association was maintained over the course of disease regardless of the time of the assessment. Results from our study have both research and clinical relevance. They could provide information that enable us to not only improve communication with patients and families, but also to develop interventions and treatments best suited for the patient.

This report summarizes the presentations and discussions that took place at the Fifth Joint Meeting of J-CaP and CaPSURE held in Tokyo, Japan, in July 2011. The J-CaP and CaPSURE Joint Initiative was established in 2007 with the objective of analyzing, reviewing, comparing and contrasting data on prostate cancer patients from Japan and the USA within the two important large-scale, longitudinal, observational databases-J-CaP and CaPSURE. Since its inception, the initiative has reviewed a wide range of topics and generated valuable data on the patterns of prostate cancer treatment and patient outcomes in the two geographical regions. The objectives of this 5th Joint Meeting were to provide an update on the current status of the J-CaP and CaPSURE databases, and also to discuss perspectives from a range of other Asian countries-Japan, China, Indonesia and Korea-on the use of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. The collaborators recognize that large databases, such as J-CaP and CaPSURE, provide valuable 'real-world' information, to complement data from clinical trials, which can help to advance the clinical management of prostate cancer patients worldwide. It is anticipated that in the near future, the Joint Initiative will expand globally to include patient registries from other countries so that best practice can be shared and regional differences in patients, treatments and outcomes can be explored.

Background

Although many tools for the assessment of prostate cancer risk have been published, most are designed to predict only biochemical recurrence, usually after a single specified treatment. We assessed the accuracy of the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score, which was validated previously to predict pathological and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy, to predict metastases, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Methods

We studied 10 627 men with clinically localized prostate cancer in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor registry, who underwent primary radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy (external beam or interstitial), androgen deprivation monotherapy, or watchful waiting/active surveillance, and had at least 6 months of follow-up after treatment. CAPRA scores were calculated at diagnosis from the prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score, percentage of biopsy cores that were positive for cancer, clinical tumor stage, and age at diagnosis. Survival was studied with Kaplan-Meier analyses. Associations between increasing CAPRA scores and bone metastasis, cancer-specific mortality, and all-cause mortality were examined by use of proportional hazards regression, with adjustment for primary treatment; for all-cause mortality, the analysis also included adjustment for age and comorbidity. Accuracy of the CAPRA score was assessed with the concordance (c)-index.

Results

Among the 10 627 patients, 311 (2.9%) men developed bone metastases, 251 (2.4%) died of prostate cancer, and 1582 (14.9%) died of other causes. Each single-point increase in the CAPRA score was associated with increased bone metastases (hazard ratio [HR] for bone metastases = 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.39 to 1.56), cancer-specific mortality (HR for prostate cancer death = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.31 to 1.48), and all-cause mortality (HR for death = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.16). The CAPRA score was accurate for predicting metastases (c-index = 0.78), cancer-specific mortality (c-index = 0.80), and all-cause mortality (c-index = 0.71).

Conclusions

In a large cohort of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who were managed with one of five primary modalities, the CAPRA score predicted clinical prostate cancer endpoints with good accuracy. These results support the value of the CAPRA score as a risk assessment and stratification tool for both research studies and clinical practice.