Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer is a Viable Option for Men Younger than 60 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: At most centers strict age criteria are lacking for eligibility for active surveillance of prostate cancer. Younger men are often counseled to undergo definitive treatment despite limited data on the outcomes of active surveillance in younger men. We compared clinical characteristics and outcomes in men who enrolled in active surveillance at age less than 60 vs 60 years old or older. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 2 institutional cohorts of a total of 2,084 men in whom prostate cancer was managed by active surveillance between 1995 and 2016. We compared outcomes in men who began active surveillance at age 60 vs 60 years or older using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: We identified 417 and 1,667 men who began active surveillance at younger than 60 and 60 years old or older, respectively, who met study inclusion criteria. At a median followup of 6.2 years we found no significant difference between men younger than 60 and 60 years old or older in the 5-year rates of biopsy progression-free survival (83% vs 83%), treatment-free survival (74% vs 71%), metastasis-free survival (99.7% vs 99.0%) or prostate cancer specific survival (100% vs 99.7%). Of the younger men 131 (31%) ultimately underwent treatment, including for pathological progression in 67% and prostate specific antigen progression in 18%. On multivariate analysis significant predictors of biopsy progression and progression to treatment among younger men were 20% or greater involvement of any core on diagnostic biopsy (HR 2.21, p = 0.003) and prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/ml or greater (HR 1.93, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Active surveillance is a viable option in select men younger than 60 years with low volume, low risk prostate cancer. However, patients must be surveyed closely and understand the significant likelihood of ultimately requiring treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".