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

To reduce treatment-related side effects in low-risk prostate cancer(PCa),both focal therapy and deferred treatments,including active surveillance(AS)and watchful waiting(WW),are worth considering over radical prostatectomy(RP).Therefore,this study aimed to compare long-term survival outcomes between focal therapy and AS/WW.Data were obtained and analyzed from the Surveillance,Epidemiology,and End Results(SEER)database.Patients with low-risk PCa who received focal therapy or AS/WW from 2010 to 2016 were included.Focal therapy included cryotherapy and laser ablation.Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare overall mortality(OM)and cancer-specific mortality(CSM)between AS/WW and focal therapy,and propensity score matching(PSM)was performed to reduce the influence of bias and unmeasured confounders.A total of 19292 patients with low-risk PCa were included in this study.In multivariate Cox proportional hazards model analysis,the risk of OM was higher in patients receiving focal therapy than those receiving AS/WW(hazard ratio[HR]=1.35,95%confidence interval[CI]:1.02–1.79,P=0.037),whereas no significant difference was found in CSM(HR=0.98,95%CI:0.23–4.11,P=0.977).After PSM,the OM and CSM of focal therapy and AS/WW showed no significant differences(HR=1.26,95%CI:0.92–1.74,P=0.149;and HR=1.26,95%CI:0.24–6.51,P=0.782,respectively).For patients with low-risk PCa,focal therapy was no match for AS/WW in decreasing OM,suggesting that AS/WW could bring more overall survival benefits.

The comparison of survival between active surveillance or watchful waiting and focal laser ablation in patients with low-risk prostate cancer

Prostate cancer(PCa)is the second-most common cancer among men.Both active surveillance or watchful waiting(AS/WW)and focal laser ablation(FLA)can avoid the complications caused by radical treatment.How to make the choice between these options in clinical practice needs further study.Therefore,this study aims to compare and analyze their effects based on overall survival(OS)and cancer-specific survival(CSS)to obtain better long-term benefits.We included patients with low-risk PCa from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database of 2010–2016.Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were conducted for OS and CSS in the two groups.To eliminate bias,this study applied a series of sensitivity analyses.Moreover,Kaplan–Meier curves were plotted to obtain survival status.A total of 18841 patients with low-risk PCa were included,with a median of 36-month follow-up.According to the multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression,the FLA group presented inferior survival benefits in OS than the AS/WW group(hazard ratio[HR]:2.13,95%confidence interval[CI]:1.37–3.33,P<0.05).After adjusting for confounders,the result persisted(HR:1.69,95%CI:1.02–2.81,P<0.05).According to the results of the sensitivity analysis,the inverse probability of the treatment weighing model indicated the same result in OS.In conclusion,AS/WW and FLA have the advantage of fewer side effects and the benefit of avoiding overtreatment compared with standard treatment.Our study suggested that AS/WW provides more survival benefits for patients with low-risk PCa.More relevant researches and data will be needed for further clarity.