Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Archives

Active Surveillance in Favorable Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

Posted by James A. Eastham, MD, FACS | Oct 2021

James A. Eastham, MD, FACS, the Peter T. Scardino Chair in Oncology and Chief of the Urology Service in the Department of Surgery at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, discusses the process of selecting intermediate-risk patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance (AS). He explains how active surveillance serves as an alternative to direct treatment that helps reduce cases of overtreatment, and notes that it is now considered an option for intermediate-risk (IR) patients across many guidelines. However, no process for patient selection is outlined, despite evidence that AS used indiscriminately with all IR patients is harmful. Dr. Eastham cites the PIVOT, ProtecT, and PREFERE trials, all of which show that when looking at the IR population as a whole, treatment is preferred based on increased rates of survival and decreased rates of disease progression. He raises the question of why AS is recommended for such patients when this data exists and summarizes the results of 14 series’ on AS for men with favorable IR compared to low-risk (LR) patients, finding equivalent survival rates in the two groups with estimated metastasis-free survival and prostate cancer-specific survival of 90% at 15-year follow up. Despite these positive results, Dr. Eastham states that there is no set definition of a “favorable” IR patient and looks to more trials to fill in this gap. He summarizes data from Göteborg and Sunnybrook, with Göteborg’s cohort showing 90% prostate cancer-specific survival and Sunnybrook’s showing 89%. Dr. Eastham details how Sunnybrook’s data includes information on Gleason pattern 4 being a major driver of high rates of metastases, leading him to then look at data from the Martini Klinik, the University of Michigan, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center supporting the idea that choosing patients with lower volume of Gleason pattern 4 will lead to greater success of AS in IR patients.

Screening and Prevention of Prostate Cancer 2021 (Part 3): Incorporating MRI for Early Detection

Posted by Sigrid V. Carlsson, MD, PhD, MPH | Jun 2021

In the final part of a 3-part series, Sigrid V. Carlsson, MD, PhD, MPH, Assistant Attending Epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, considers the current role of MRI in early detection of prostate cancer. She explains that while MRI is a useful screening tool, it is not foolproof, and its accuracy varies widely depending on user expertise. For this reason, using a negative MRI to justify not getting a biopsy is not always strongly advised. However, many studies are underway that may identify combinations of MRI and biomarker tests that will ultimately help patients avoid more unnecessary biopsies.

Screening and Prevention of Prostate Cancer 2021 (Part 2): Who Needs a Biopsy?

Posted by Sigrid V. Carlsson, MD, PhD, MPH | Jun 2021

In part 2 of a 3-part series, Sigrid V. Carlsson, MD, PhD, MPH, Assistant Attending Epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, goes over her 5 Golden Rules for prostate cancer testing, which are intended to minimize overdiagnosis and overtreatment while also making sure that significant disease is not missed. Rule 1 is to get consent and engage in shared decision-making with patients. Dr. Carlsson notes that this can sometimes be difficult since the numerous decision aids available are often difficult to use and understand. The second rule is not to screen men who will not benefit, for instance, older men with multiple comorbidities and short life expectancies. Dr. Carlsson does observe, however, that instituting an age cutoff does not necessarily make sense, and that physiologic assessment of life expectancy may be a more useful metric. In rule 3, Dr. Carlsson advises clinicians not to biopsy patients without a compelling reason, since prostate biopsies may lead to infectious complications and hospitalization. She then lays out the options for risk stratification, such as risk calculators, biomarker tests, and MRI. Rule 4 recommends against treating low-risk disease since, as Dr. Carlsson explains, active surveillance is a safe strategy over longer follow-up for appropriately selected patients with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer when following a well-defined monitoring plan. Finally, rule 5 exhorts clinicians to send patients who require treatment to a high-volume provider. This is key, Dr. Carlsson argues, since evidence shows that there is a large degree of heterogeneity among surgeons regarding functional and oncological outcomes after prostatectomy, and it takes approximately 250 surgeries for a surgeon to really master the procedure.

Screening and Prevention of Prostate Cancer 2021 (Part 1): Evidence for PSA Screening

Posted by Sigrid V. Carlsson, MD, PhD, MPH | Jun 2021

In part 1 of a 3-part series, Sigrid V. Carlsson, MD, PhD, MPH, Assistant Attending Epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, looks at the evidence supporting widespread prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening. She looks at a range of large studies with long follow-up that demonstrate a reduction in prostate cancer mortality of approximately 30% as a result of widespread PSA screening. Dr. Carlsson also looks at how PSA screening decisions can be made by taking other risk factors into account in order to minimize unnecessary testing. She also notes that the loss in quality-adjusted life years somewhat offsets the benefits of widespread screening. She concludes by introducing her 5 Golden Rules of testing to keep the benefits and reduce the harms.

Role of MR-Targeted Prostate Biopsy in Active Surveillance

Posted by Behfar Ehdaie, MD, MPH | Dec 2020

Behfar Ehdaie, MD, MPH, a urologic surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, discusses how MR-targeted prostate biopsy in active surveillance improves detection of higher grade prostate cancer and reduces misclassification of patients with low-risk disease. He summarizes the findings of studies that demonstrate MR-targeted biopsy’s superiority over systematic biopsy in detecting cancer, the particular benefits of MR-ultrasound software fusion prostate biopsy as compared to visually targeted biopsy, and the importance of combining MR-targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy since some tumors are not visible on MRI. Dr. Ehdaie also notes that patients on active surveillance particularly benefit from scheduled MR-targeted biopsies since only using changes in surveillance MRI and clinical stage to trigger biopsy can cause many higher grade cancers to be missed. Dr. Ehdaie concludes by emphasizing the importance of using a transperineal biopsy technique as opposed to a transrectal one in order to reduce complications and improve cancer detection.