BACKGROUND: Desmoid tumors (DTs) are rare, fibroblastic cell proliferations that can exhibit locally aggressive behavior but lack metastatic potential. Initial management has traditionally involved upfront resection; however, contemporary guidelines and expert panels have increasingly advocated for prioritizing active surveillance strategies.
METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective chart review identified all patients diagnosed with a primary DT at any site from 2007 to 2020. The primary outcome was the initial management strategy over time. Secondary outcomes included treatment-free survival (TFS) and time to treatment (TTT) for those undergoing active surveillance, as well as recurrence-free survival (RFS) and time to recurrence for those undergoing resection.
RESULTS: Overall, 103 patients were included, with 68% female and a median follow-up of 44 months [24-74]. The most common tumor locations included the abdominal wall (27%), intra-abdominal/mesenteric (25%), chest wall (19%), and extremity (10%). Initial management included resection (60%), systemic therapy (20%), active surveillance (18%), and cryoablation (2%). Rates of surgical resection significantly decreased (p < 0.001) over time, from 69.6% prior to 2018 to 29.2% after 2018. For those treated with upfront resection, 5-year RFS was 41.2%, and for patients undergoing initial active surveillance, TFS was 66.7% at 2 years, with a median TTT of 4 months [4-10].
CONCLUSIONS: This single-institution cohort at a tertiary medical center spanning over a decade demonstrates the transition to active surveillance for initial management of DTs, and highlights salient metrics in the era of surveillance. This trend mirrors recommended treatment strategies by expert panels and consensus guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment approach for low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) remains controversial. While active surveillance is an increasingly popular option, definitive local treatments, including radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and prostate seed implantation (PSI), are also commonly used. This study aimed to evaluate the survival outcomes of patients with LRPC using a large patient population from the National Cancer Database (NCDB).
METHODS: We analyzed data from 195,452 patients diagnosed with LRPC between 2004 and 2015 using the NCDB. Patients were classified based on their treatment modalities, including RP, EBRT, PSI, or no local treatment (NLT). Only patients with Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores of 0 or 1 were included to ensure comparability. Propensity score analysis was used to balance the treatment groups, and the accelerated failure time model was used to analyze the survival rates of the treatment groups.
RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 70.8 months, 24,545 deaths occurred, resulting in an all-cause mortality rate of 13%. RP demonstrated a survival benefit compared with NLT, particularly in patients younger than 74 years of age. In contrast, radiation treatments (EBRT and PSI) did not improve survival in the younger age groups, except for patients older than 70 years for EBRT and older than 65 years for PSI. Notably, EBRT in patients younger than 65 years was associated with inferior outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the differences in survival outcomes among LRPC treatment modalities. RP was associated with improved survival compared to NLT, especially in younger patients. In contrast, EBRT and PSI showed survival benefits primarily in the older age groups. NLT is a reasonable choice, particularly in younger patients when RP is not chosen. These findings emphasize the importance of individualized treatment decisions for LRPC management.

OBJECTIVE: There is no consensus on de-escalation of monitoring during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa). Our objective was to determine clinical criteria that can be used in decisions to reduce the intensity of AS monitoring.
METHODS: The global prospective AS cohort from the Global Action Plan prostate cancer AS consortium was retrospectively analyzed. The 24656 patients with complete outcome data were considered. The primary goal was to develop a model identifying a subgroup with a high ratio of other-cause mortality (OCM) to PCa-specific mortality (PCSM). Nonparametric competing-risks models were used to estimate cause-specific mortality. We hypothesized that the subgroup with the highest OCM/PCSM ratio would be good candidates for de-escalation of AS monitoring.
UNASSIGNED: Cumulative mortality at 15 yr, accounting for censoring, was 1.3% for PCSM, 11.5% for OCM, and 18.7% for death from unknown causes. We identified body mass index (BMI) >25 kg/m2 and <11% positive cores at initial biopsy as an optimal set of criteria for discriminating OCM from PCSM. The 15-yr OCM/PCSM ratio was 34.2 times higher for patients meeting these criteria than for those not meeting the criteria. According to these criteria, 37% of the cohort would be eligible for de-escalation of monitoring. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the lack of external validation.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified BMI >25 kg/m2 and <11% positive cores at initial biopsy as clinical criteria for de-escalation of AS monitoring in PCa.
RESULTS: We investigated factors that could help in deciding on when to reduce the intensity of monitoring for patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. We found that patients with higher BMI (body mass index) and lower prostate cancer volume may be good candidates for less intensive monitoring. This model could help doctors and patients in making decisions on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance for prostate cancer was initiated in the early 2000s. We assessed the long-term outcomes of active surveillance in Japan.
METHODS: This multicenter prospective observational cohort study enrolled men aged 50-80 years with stage cT1cN0M0 prostate cancer in 2002 and 2003. The eligibility criteria included serum prostate-specific antigen level ≤ 20 ng/mL, ≤ 2 positive cores per 6-12 biopsy samples, Gleason score ≤ 6, and cancer involvement < 50% in the positive core. Patients were encouraged to undergo active surveillance. Prostate-specific antigen levels were measured bimonthly for 6 months and every 3 months thereafter. Triggers for recommending treatment were prostate-specific antigen doubling time of < 2 years and pathological progression on repeat biopsy.
RESULTS: Among 134 patients, 118 underwent active surveillance. The median age, prostate-specific antigen level at diagnosis, and maximum cancer occupancy were 70 years, 6.5 ng/mL, and 11.2%, respectively. Ninety-one patients had only one positive cancer core. The median observation period was 10.7 years. At 1 year, 65.7% underwent a repeat biopsy, and 37% of patients experienced pathological progression. The active surveillance continuation rates at 5, 10, and 15 years were 28%, 9%, and 4%, respectively. One prostate cancer-related death occurred in a patient who refused treatment despite pathological progression at the one-year repeat biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance according to this study protocol was associated with conversion to the next treatment without delay, when indicated, despite the selection criteria and follow-up protocols being less rigorous than those recommended in current international guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: In recent decades, there has been an increasing role for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC). The purpose of this review is to provide an update and outline future directions for the role of MRI in the detection of csPC.
RESULTS: In diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer pre-biopsy, advances include our understanding of MRI-targeted biopsy, the role of biparametric MRI (non-contrast) and changing indications, for example the role of MRI in screening for prostate cancer. Furthermore, the role of MRI in identifying csPC is maturing, with emphasis on standardization of MRI reporting in active surveillance (PRECISE), clinical staging (EPE grading, MET-RADS-P) and recurrent disease (PI-RR, PI-FAB). Future directions of prostate MRI in detecting csPC include quality improvement, artificial intelligence and radiomics, positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI and MRI-directed therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: The utility of MRI in detecting csPC has been demonstrated in many clinical scenarios, initially from simply diagnosing csPC pre-biopsy, now to screening, active surveillance, clinical staging, and detection of recurrent disease. Continued efforts should be undertaken not only to emphasize the reporting of prostate MRI quality, but to standardize reporting according to the appropriate clinical setting.

The recent surge in the incidence of small papillary thyroid cancers (PTCs) has been linked to the widespread use of ultrasonography, thereby prompting concerns regarding overdiagnosis. Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a less invasive alternative management strategy for low-risk PTCs, especially for PTCs measuring ≤1 cm in maximal diameter. Recent studies report low disease progression rates of low-risk PTCs ≤1 cm under AS. Ongoing research is currently exploring the feasibility of AS for larger PTCs (<20 mm). AS protocols include meticulous ultrasound assessment, emphasis on standardized techniques, and a multidisciplinary approach; they involve monitoring the nodules for size, growth, potential extrathyroidal extension, proximity to the trachea and recurrent laryngeal nerve, and potential cervical nodal metastases. The criteria for progression, often defined as an increase in the maximum diameter of the PTC, warrant a review of precision and ongoing examinations. Challenges exist regarding the reliability of volume measurements for defining PTC disease progression. Although ultrasonography plays a pivotal role, challenges in assessing progression and minor extrathyroidal extension underscore the importance of a multidisciplinary approach in disease management. This comprehensive overview highlights the evolving landscape of AS for PTCs, emphasizing the need for standardized protocols, meticulous assessments, and ongoing research to inform decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: Active surveillance (AS) has evolved into a widely applied treatment strategy for many men around the world with low-risk prostate cancer (or in selected cases intermediate-risk disease). Here, we report on the safety and acceptability of AS, and treatment outcomes for low- and intermediate-risk tumours over time in 14 623 men with follow-up of over 6 yr.
METHODS: Clinical data from 26 999 men on AS from 25 cohorts in 15 countries have been collected in an international database from 2000 onwards.
UNASSIGNED: Across our predefined four time periods of 4 yr each (covering the period 2000-2016), there was no significant change in overall survival (OS). However, metastasis-free survival (MFS) rates have improved since the second period and were excellent (>99%). Treatment-free survival rates for earlier periods showed a slightly more rapid shift to radical treatment. Over time, there was a constant proportion of 5% of men for whom anxiety was registered as the reason for treatment alteration. There was, however, also a subset of 10-15% in whom treatment was changed, for which no apparent reason was available. In a subset of men (10-15%), tumour progression was the trigger for treatment. In men who opted for radical treatment, surgery was the most common treatment modality. In those men who underwent radical treatment, 90% were free from biochemical recurrence at 5 yr after treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that AS was a safe management option over the full duration in this large multicentre cohort with long-term follow-up, given the 84.1% OS and 99.4% MFS at 10 yr. The probability of treatment at 10 yr was 20% in men with initial low-risk tumours and 31% in men with intermediate-risk tumours. New diagnostic modalities may improve the acceptability of follow-up using individual risk assessments, while safely broadening the use of AS in higher-risk tumours.
RESULTS: Active surveillance (AS) has evolved into a widely applied treatment strategy for many men with prostate cancer around the world. In this report, we show the long-term safety of following AS for men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Our study confirms AS as a safe management option for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. New diagnostic modalities may improve the acceptability of follow-up using individual risk assessments, while safely broadening the use of AS in higher-risk tumours.

暂无摘要。

Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), its derivatives, and magnetic resonance tomography (MRI) lack sufficient specificity and sensitivity for the prediction of risk reclassification of prostate cancer (PCa) patients on active surveillance (AS). We investigated selected transcripts in urinary extracellular vesicles (uEV) from PCa patients on AS to predict PCa risk reclassification (defined by ISUP 1 with PSA > 10 ng/mL or ISUP 2-5 with any PSA level) in control biopsy. Before the control biopsy, urine samples were prospectively collected from 72 patients, of whom 43% were reclassified during AS. Following RNA isolation from uEV, multiplexed reverse transcription, and pre-amplification, 29 PCa-associated transcripts were quantified by quantitative PCR. The predictive ability of the transcripts to indicate PCa risk reclassification was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses via calculation of the area under the curve (AUC) and was then compared to clinical parameters followed by multivariate regression analysis. ROC curve analyses revealed a predictive potential for AMACR, HPN, MALAT1, PCA3, and PCAT29 (AUC = 0.614-0.655, p < 0.1). PSA, PSA density, PSA velocity, and MRI maxPI-RADS showed AUC values of 0.681-0.747 (p < 0.05), with accuracies for indicating a PCa risk reclassification of 64-68%. A model including AMACR, MALAT1, PCAT29, PSA density, and MRI maxPI-RADS resulted in an AUC of 0.867 (p < 0.001) with a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 87%, 83%, and 85%, respectively, thus surpassing the predictive power of the individual markers. These findings highlight the potential of uEV transcripts in combination with clinical parameters as monitoring markers during the AS of PCa.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how a family history of prostate cancer influences the progression of the disease in individuals with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance.
METHODS: We conducted a thorough literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to June 2023. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023441853). The study evaluated the effects of family history of prostate cancer (intervention) on disease progression (outcome) in prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance (population) and compared them to those without a family history (comparators). For time to disease progression outcomes, the extracted data were synthesized using the inverse variance method on the log hazard ratios scale.
RESULTS: A total of eight studies were incorporated into this systematic review and meta-analysis. The combined hazard ratio for unadjusted disease progression was 1.06 (95% confidential interval [CI] 0.66-1.69; p=0.82). The combined hazard ratio for adjusted disease progression was 1.31 (95% CI 1.16-1.48; p<0.0001). All the enlisted studies demonstrated high quality based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The certainty of evidence for univariate and multivariate analysis of disease progression was very low and low, respectively. Publication bias for all studies was not significant.
CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with prostate cancer opting for active surveillance, a family history of prostate cancer may serve as an independent risk factor associated with an elevated risk of disease progression. Clinicians should be counseled about the increased risk of disease progression in patients with a family history of prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance.