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.

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

Factors Influencing Selection of Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer

Determinants of active surveillance uptake in a diverse population‐based cohort of men with low‐risk prostate cancer: The Treatment Options in Prostate Cancer Study (TOPCS)

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

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

Physician Perception of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer

Baseline Features and Treatment-Decision Making in Patients with Prostate Cancer Enrolled in the United in Fighting Prostate (UFO) Cancer Registry

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

Factors That Influence Treatment Decisions: A Qualitative Study of Racially and Ethnically Diverse Patients with Low‐ and Very‐low Risk Prostate Cancer

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

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

Physician Recommendations Trump Patient Preferences in Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions

Aggressive Prostate Cancer in Patients Treated with Active Surveillance

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

Active surveillance should be considered for select men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer

Impact of a protein-based assay that predicts prostate cancer aggressiveness on urologists' recommendations for active treatment or active surveillance: a randomized clinical utility trial

Socioeconomic Determinants Are Associated with the Utilization and Outcomes of Active Surveillance or Watchful Waiting in Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer.

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

Use of Persuasive Language in Communication of Risk during Prostate Cancer Treatment Consultations

The Comparison of Survival Between Active Surveillance or Watchful Waiting and Focal Therapy for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: a Real-World Study from the SEER Database

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