MP62-09 COMPARISON OF PATHOLOGICAL AND ONCOLOGICAL OUTCOMES OF MEN ON ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE PROGRESSING TO RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY WITH A MATCHED COHORT OF MEN UNDERGOING IMMEDIATE RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY IN A SINGLE INSTITUTION (2014)

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized VII1 Apr 2014MP62-09 COMPARISON OF PATHOLOGICAL AND ONCOLOGICAL OUTCOMES OF MEN ON ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE PROGRESSING TO RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY WITH A MATCHED COHORT OF MEN UNDERGOING IMMEDIATE RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY IN A SINGLE INSTITUTION Jonathan Aning, Homayoun Zargar, Peter Black, Alan So, Larry Goldenberg, and Martin Gleave Jonathan AningJonathan Aning , Homayoun ZargarHomayoun Zargar , Peter BlackPeter Black , Alan SoAlan So , Larry GoldenbergLarry Goldenberg , and Martin GleaveMartin Gleave View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.1966AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES This study examined and compared pathological and oncological outcomes of men with low risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance (AS) who progressed from AS to radical prostatectomy in relation to matched men who underwent immediate radical prostatectomy at the same institution. METHODS Men with low risk prostate cancer managed with AS who progressed to undergo radical prostatectomy were identified (Group 1). These men were compared with a matched cohort of men who underwent immediate radical prostatectomy (Group 2). Men were matched in a 1:2 ratio [Group 1 (n=108) : Group 2 (n=216)], based on their year of diagnosis and the following parameters at diagnosis: PSA, pre-operative biopsy gleason score, number of biopsy positive cores and clinical stage. Pathological upgrading, upstaging, and PSA recurrence were examined by Chi square statistics. RESULTS On analysis of the radical prostatectomy specimen gleason score upgrading to Gleason 8-10 was seen in 5.9% of men in Group 1 and 3.3% of men in Group 2 (P= 0.105). Pathological T3 was present in 19.8% of men in Group 1 and 13.5% of men in Group 2 (P= 0.142). Median time to treatment for Group 1 and 2 was 22.5 and 4.25 months respectively. The primary indication for proceeding to radical prostatectomy was gleason grade progression at rebiopsy in 60% of AS cases. Median follow up post surgery was 18 and 61 months for Group 1 and Group 2 respectively. Biochemical recurrence rates were 3.3% in Group 1 and 8.7% in Group 2 (P=0.105). CONCLUSIONS Active surveillance enables deferred therapy of men with low risk prostate cancer with no significant risk of short term adverse pathological or oncological outcomes in those who progress to require radical prostatectomy. Close attention to follow up is imperative however to minimize the potential risk of disease misclassification or progression. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e720 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Jonathan Aning More articles by this author Homayoun Zargar More articles by this author Peter Black More articles by this author Alan So More articles by this author Larry Goldenberg More articles by this author Martin Gleave More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...