Abstract:Importance Initial management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer is evolving, with no clear recommendation for treatment. Data on utilization of active surveillance for patients with newly diagnosed intermediate-risk prostate cancer may help clarify emerging trends. Objective To further characterize US national trends of initial management of intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study included patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosed from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020. Eligible patients were diagnosed in US hospitals included in the National Cancer Database; National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk stratification guidelines were used to characterize as favorable vs unfavorable intermediate risk. Analysis was performed in September 2023. Exposure Active surveillance vs intervention with surgery and/or radiation or no treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures Temporal trends in demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic factors among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and their association with the use of active surveillance; further subgroup analysis was conducted for those with favorable vs unfavorable intermediate risk classification. Results In total, 289 584 men diagnosed with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were identified from 2010 to 2020 (46 147 Black [15.9%], 230 071 White [79.5%]). Among patients, 153 726 (53.1%) underwent prostatectomy, 107 152 (37.0%) underwent radiotherapy, and 15 847 (5.5%) underwent active surveillance as initial treatment strategy. Overall, active surveillance quadrupled from 418 of 21 457 patients (2.0%) in 2010 to 2428 of 28 192 patients (8.6%) in 2020 for the entire cohort ( P < .001). Active surveillance increased from 317 of 12 858 patients (2.4%) in 2010 to 2020 of 12 902 patients (13.5%) in 2020 in men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer ( P < .001). In the unfavorable intermediate-risk cohort, active surveillance increased from 101 of 8181 patients (1.2%) in 2010 to 408 of 12 861 patients (3.1%) in 2020 ( P < .001). On multivariable analysis, use of active surveillance was associated with increased age (age 70-80 years vs <50 years: odds ratio [OR], 3.09; 95% CI, 2.66-3.59), lower Gleason score (3 + 3 vs 3 + 4: OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 3.25-3.66), early T stage (T2c vs T1a through T2a: OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.32-0.38), treatment at an academic center (community vs academic center: OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78), higher level of education (communities with 21% or higher population without high school vs less than 7%: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79), insurance type (Medicare or other governmental service vs private: OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.16), proximity to treatment facility (greater than 120 miles vs less than 60 miles: OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.84), facility location (South Atlantic vs New England: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.46-0.53), and lower income (less than 63 000 or greater: OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.14-1.31). Conclusions and Relevance These findings highlight increasing implementation of active surveillance in the initial management of intermediate risk prostate cancer. Prospective data with improved risk stratification incorporating genomics and digital pathology artificial intelligence as well as novel surveillance strategies may continue to better delineate optimal treatment recommendations in this patient population.

The association of patient and disease characteristics with the overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2016

Comparison of the clinicopathologic features of prostate cancer in US and Chinese populations

Patient-level Factors Associated with the Use of Active Surveillance: the Talking about Prostate Cancer Cohort.

Primary Care Physician and Urologist Perspectives on Optimizing Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Patient and physician perspectives on treatments for low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative study

Trends in Treatment for Prostate Cancer in China: Preliminary Patterns of Care Study in a Single Institution

Risk Stratification of Low-risk Prostate Cancer: Individualizing Care in the Era of Active Surveillance

Patient Decision-Making Factors in Aggressive Treatment of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

Are Elderly Patients With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Overtreated? Exploring Heterogeneity in Survival Effects

Physician Perception of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer

Trends in Active Surveillance for Men With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, Landis P, Wolf S, Trock BJ, Carter HB.J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 20;33(30):3379-85. [Epub 2015 Aug 31]. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764.

Comparing Active Surveillance and Watchful Waiting With Radical Treatment Using Machine Learning Models Among Patients With Prostate Cancer

The association between patient and disease characteristics, and the risk of disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance

Contemporary national trends in prostate cancer risk profile at diagnosis

Aggressive Prostate Cancer in Patients Treated with Active Surveillance

Treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer with active surveillance in the routine care-Long-term outcomes of a prospective noninterventional study (HAROW)

Has Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer Become Safer? Lessons Learned from a Global Clinical Registry

Favorable Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels Correlate with a Worse Prognosis in High-Grade Prostate Cancer: a Population-Based Analysis.

A prospective cohort of men with localized prostate cancer on active surveillance protocol in Hong Kong, China: what did we learn?

The effect of dual eligibility on the quality of active surveillance in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.