Aller à la navigation principale
Skip notifications
À compter du 1er décembre 2023, l’accès à POEMs et à Essential Evidence Plus ne fera plus partie des avantages offerts aux membres de l’AMC.
Search
Active surveillance reduces the need for surgery, with no change in mortality, at the price of a small increase of metastatic disease (ProtecT)
Question clinique
What are the benefits and harms of different approaches to the treatment of screen-detected prostate cancer?
L’Essentiel
Active surveillance provides a balance of benefits and harms. After 15 years, for every 100 participants 40 can avoid the need for surgery with no increase in the risk of death, although 3 to 4 more develop metastatic disease than in the groups treated initially with surgery or radiation.(LOE = 1b)
Overuse alert: This POEM aligns with Choosing Wisely Canada's patient material on low-risk prostate cancer.
Référence
Plan de l'etude: Randomized controlled trial (nonblinded)
Financement: Government
Cadre: Outpatient (specialty)
Sommaire
The ProtecT Study is a clinical trial in the United Kingdom that, with its initial publication 5 years ago, provided the best information available on the benefits and harms of surgery, radiation, and active surveillance for men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Of 2664 men with localized prostate cancer detected by screening between 1999 and 2009, a remarkable 1643 agreed to be randomized to prostatectomy, radiotherapy, or active surveillance. With active surveillance, any patient or physician concern or an increase of at least 50% in prostate-specific antigen level prompted a review, further testing as appropriate, and consideration for therapy. This study reports the outcomes a median of 15 years following enrollment. The primary and secondary outcomes are reported per 1000 person-years, which is a bit hard to interpret clinically as few of my patients live that long. I reframe it as 100 patients followed for 10 years, or 67 patients followed for 15 years. The primary outcome of prostate cancer–specific mortality was uncommon with no significant difference among the groups, ranging from 1.5 to 2.2 deaths per 1000 person-years (or per 100 men followed for 10 years). There was also no significant difference in all-cause mortality. Metastatic disease was approximately twice as likely in the active surveillance group, with an excess of approximately 3.5 more diagnoses of metastatic disease per 1000 person-years. Patients receiving active surveillance were also more likely to start androgen-deprivation therapy (9.4 vs 5.3 to 5.6 per 1000 person-years) and more likely to experience any clinical progression, which included metastasis, progressing to T3 or T4, requiring androgen deprivation, or having anatomic complications due to tumor growth. By 15 years, the glass-half-full interpretation is that approximately 40% of men were able to avoid radiotherapy or surgery.
Reviewer
Mark H. Ebell, MD, MS
Professor
University of Georgia
Athens, GA
Commentaires
Impact assessment
Excellent
Impact assessment protecT
learned new
Active surveillance in prostate cancer
Confirms what I think most FP’s are already foing
Typical of Government funded studies
Saving money at the expense of 3-4 % of population - this is not medicine it is rationing of healthcare - at least there should be another study of the result of this study and informed consent - I fear for the future when the only outcome is saving finances and not focused on health - is 4% lose now the acceptable standard
Active surveillance vs surgery for prostate cancer.
I think those who develop metastatic disease might wish they had surgery when it was an option. These are the patients I treat as a GPO.
prostate ca surveillance
after 15 years , 3-4 pts will die from metastatic disease, left untreated
Active surveillance
The few patients who develop metastatic disease may nevertheless be dissatisfied with the outcome, and with your care.