Reasons for Discontinuation of Active Surveillance in Men with Grade Group 1 and Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer in the PRIAS Study - European Medical Journal

Reasons for Discontinuation of Active Surveillance in Men with Grade Group 1 and Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer in the PRIAS Study

1 Mins
Urology
Authors:
* Jeroen Lodder , 1 Sebastiaan Remmers , 1 Cristina Marenghi , 2 Roderick van den Bergh , 3 Francisco Lozano-Urunuela , 4 Markus Graefen , 5 Antti Rannikko , 6 Frederic Staerman , 7 Mikio Sugimoto , 8 Rik Somford , 9 Ivo de Vos , 1 Pim van Leeuwen , 10 Monique Roobol , 1 the PRIAS consortium
  • 1. Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
  • 2. Fondazione IRCCS Instituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
  • 3. Sint Franciscus Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
  • 4. Hospital Universitario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
  • 5. Martini Klinik, Hamburg, Germany
  • 6. Helsinki University Hospital, Finland
  • 7. Polyclinique Reims-Bezannes, France
  • 8. Kagawa University, Takamatsu, Japan
  • 9. Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
  • 10. Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
*Correspondence to [email protected]
Disclosure:

Marenghi has held a leadership or fiduciary role for Europa Uomo Italia. Rannikko has received academic research grants from State Research Funding (VTR) of HUS Helsinki University Hospital, Cancer Foundation Finland, Academy of Finland, and the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation, Finland; consulting fees from Janssen, Orion, Accord Healthcare, and Nanoform; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen, Orion, and Accord Healthcare; and held board membership for the Ida Montin Foundation and the Orion Research Foundation. Remmers has received support for the present manuscript for analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision for important intellectual content, and statistical analysis. Somford has received grants or contracts from any entity from the Dutch Cancer Society, Besins, Janssen, and AstraZeneca; consulting fees from Bayer, Janssen, and Blue Earth Diagnostics; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Mayumana; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Bayer and Pfizer; and has held leadership or fiduciary role for the Dutch Uro-Oncology Study Group and the Dutch Urological Association. Suigimoto has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Astellas, Janssen, and Takeda. The other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation:
EMJ Urol. ;13[1]:46-47. https://doi.org/10.33590/emjurol/QWYN6350.
Keywords:
Active surveillance (AS), disease progression, prognosis, prostate cancer (PCa).

Each article is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 License.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), with evidence supporting its safety for both Grade Group (GG) 11 and favourable-risk GG2 disease.2,3 However, almost half of men discontinue AS within 5 years, often without clear evidence of disease progression but for reasons such as patient anxiety.4 Here, the authors compare the reasons for discontinuation between GG1 and GG2 PCa, questioning whether AS is equally tolerated from a psychosocial perspective in these groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors evaluated men with GG1 (n=1328) and GG2 (n=120) PCa from the global Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) database who had an MRI at the time of diagnosis and attended at least one follow-up visit. Cumulative incidences (CIN) of remaining on AS, discontinuation based on protocol advice, and discontinuation for other reasons (e.g., patient anxiety) were calculated using competing risk analyses. Additionally, protocol-based reasons of discontinuation between GG1 and GG2 were compared.

RESULTS

Median follow-up for men still on AS was 1.68 years (interquartile range: 0.80–3.34) in GG1 and 1.44 years (interquartile range: 0.76–2.34) in GG2. The CIN of still being on AS at 3 years post-diagnosis was similar in both groups: 0.71 (95% CI: 0.67–0.74) in GG1 versus 0.60 (95% CI: 0.49–0.73) in GG2 (Figure 1).

The CIN of discontinuation based on protocol advice was also similar: 0.19 (95% CI: 0.16–0.22) in GG1 versus 0.24 (95% CI: 0.14–0.35) in GG2. A CIN of 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06–0.10) in GG1 and 0.15 (95% CI: 0.05–0.24) in GG2 reflects discontinuation for other reasons. Among men who discontinued based on protocol advice within 3 years, biopsy upgrading was the main reason in both groups, with 85% in GG1 and 59% in GG2.

Figure 1: Cumulative incidences of active surveillance discontinuation for Grade Group 1 and Grade Group 2 prostate cancer.
AS: active surveillance; GG1: Grade Group 1; GG2: Grade Group 2.

CONCLUSION

Both the overall probability of remaining on AS at 3 years post-diagnosis and discontinuing based on protocol advice are similar for men with GG1 and GG2 PCa, with biopsy upgrading being the most common reason for discontinuation in both groups. Importantly, there seems to be no difference in the probability of discontinuation due to other reasons, such as patient anxiety, suggesting that patients and physicians tolerate AS as a management strategy for favourable GG2 PCa.

References
Newcomb LF et al. Long-term outcomes in patients using protocol-directed active surveillance for prostate cancer. JAMA. 2024;331(24):2084-93. Lodder J et al. Reasons for discontinuation of active surveillance in men with Grade Group 1 and Grade Group 2 prostate cancer in the PRIAS study. Abstract A0028. EAU25, 21-24 March, 2025. Baboudjian M et al. Active surveillance of grade group 2 prostate cancer: oncological outcomes from a contemporary European cohort. Eur Urol Oncol. 2025;DOI:10.1016/j.euo.2025.01.009. Timilshina N et al. Factors associated with discontinuation of active surveillance among men with low-risk prostate cancer: a population-based study. J Urol. 2021;206(4):903-13.

Rate this content's potential impact on patient outcomes

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this content.