Open AccessOutcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in a middle eastern tertiary care center
Author(s) -
Mohammad Hout,
Ali Merhe,
Nassib Abou Heidar,
Jose M El-Asmar,
Wassim Wazzan,
Bassel G. Bachir,
Rola Jaafar,
Albert El Hajj,
Muhammad Bulbul
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
archivio italiano di urologia andrologia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.429
H-Index - 23
eISSN - 2282-4197
pISSN - 1124-3562
DOI - 10.4081/aiua.2021.4.385
Subject(s) - medicine , prostate cancer , prostate , cohort , biopsy , rectal examination , prostate specific antigen , cancer , watchful waiting , oncology , radiology
Background: The aim of our study was to evaluate the outcome of active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer for a cohort of patients at our institution. Methods: A total of 43 patients with low risk prostate cancer were enrolled in an active surveillance pilot program at our institution between 2008 and 2018. Follow up protocols included: periodic prostate specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination (DRE), multiparametric MRI, and prostate biopsy at one year. Pertinent parameters were collected, and descriptive statistics were reported along with a subset analysis of patients that dropped out of the protocol to receive active treatment for disease progression. Results: Out of 43 eligible patients, 46.5% had a significant rise in follow up PSA. DRE was initially suspicious in 27.9% of patients, and none had any change in DRE on follow up. Initially, prostate MRIs showed PIRADS 3, 4, and 5 in 14%, 37.2%, and 11.6% respectively, while 23.2% had a negative initial MRI. 14% did not have an MRI. Upon follow up, 18.6% of patients had progression on MRI. Initial biopsies revealed that 86% were classified as WHO group 1, while 14% as WHO group 2. With regards to the follow up biopsies, 11.6% were upgraded. 20.9% of our patients had active treatment; 44.4% due to upgraded biopsy results, 22.2% due to PSA progression, 22.2% due to strong patient preference, and 11.1% due to radiologic progression. Conclusions: For selected men with low risk prostate cancer, AS is a reasonable alternative. The decision for active treatment should be tailored upon changes in PSA, DRE, MRI, and biopsy results.