The prostate cancer research international: Active surveillance study

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 216-221

  Bangma, Chris H ^a   Bul, Meelan ^a   Roobol, Monique ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

active surveillance; low risk cancer; prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROTEIN P27; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR EZH2;

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; DISEASE SPECIFIC SURVIVAL; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SEXUALITY; SURVIVAL RATE; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; TUMOR BIOPSY; TUMOR VOLUME;

BIOPSY; DISEASE PROGRESSION; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; INTERNET; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; PATIENT SELECTION; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGISTRIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84859630886     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: 14736586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e328351dcc7     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Ferlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E. Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46:765-781.
2. Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL, et al. Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 1991; 324:1156-1161.
3. Bray F, Lortet-Tieulent J, Ferlay J, et al. Prostate cancer incidence and mortality trends in 37 European countries: an overview. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46:3040-3052.
4. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:1320-1328.
5. Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance. www.prias-project.org. [Accessed 14 November 2011]
6. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2007; 52:1560-1563. (Pubitemid 350052404)
7. van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG, et al. Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre 'Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance' study. BJU Int 2010; 105:956-962.
8. Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Rannikko A, et al. Predictors of unfavourable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance program. Eur Urol 2011. This article shows the reasons and results of reclassification and initiation of active treatment in the PRIAS consortium over 6 years.
9. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, et al. Clinical results of long-termfollow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:126-131. This article shows the results of surveillance and treatment in the Canadian cohort that has the longest median follow-up in the world.
10. van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K, et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 2008; 54:1297-1305.
11. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:2185-2190. This article shows the results of active surveillance and treatment based on a protocol that uses only biopsies to reclassify patient risk on progressive disease.
12. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, et al. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 2010; 58:831-835. This article shows the results of active surveillance in a cohort that is based on very strict inclusion criteria of one positive biopsy only.
13. van den Bergh RC, van Vugt HA, Korfage IJ, et al. Disease insight and treatment perception of men on active surveillance for early prostate cancer. BJU Int 2010; 105:322-328.
14. van den Bergh RC, Essink-Bot ML, Roobol MJ, et al. Anxiety and distress during active surveillance for early prostate cancer. Cancer 2009; 115:3868-3878.
15. van den Bergh RC, Essink-Bot ML, Roobol MJ, et al. Do anxiety and distress increase during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer? J Urol 2010; 183:1786-1791.
16. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271:368-374. (Pubitemid 24037911)
17. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 2011; 185:121-125. This article validates the old Epstein criteria for insignificant disease in a large screening study and shows that the maximal cancer volume for indolent disease is actually much larger than 0.5 ml, namely 1.3 ml.
18. Futterer JJ, Barentsz J, Heijmijnk ST. Imaging modalities for prostate cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2009; 9:923-937.
19. Sciarra A, Barentsz J, Bjartell A, et al. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging: how they are changing the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011.
20. Morgan VA, Riches SF, Thomas K, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring prostate cancer progression in patients managed by active surveillance. Br J Radiol 2011; 84:31-37.
21. van As NJ, de Souza NM, Riches SF, et al. A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol 2009; 56:981-987.
22. Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Durand X, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging does not improve the prediction of misclassification of prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance when the most stringent selection criteria are based on the saturation biopsy scheme. BJU Int 2010. This article illustrates that the role of MRI for selection of cancer patients for active surveillance might well be overestimated currently, and that prospective monitoring studies are needed.
23. Hoeks C. Can MRI replace serial biopsies, and how to prove that? In: Presented at Active Surveillance for Low Risk Prostate Cancer; 12-13 January 2012; Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
24. Braeckman J, Autier P, Garbar C, et al. Computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning): a novel technology for locating and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008; 101:293-298.
25. Braeckman J, Autier P, Soviany C, et al. The accuracy of transrectal ultrasonography supplemented with computer-aided ultrasonography for detecting small prostate cancers. BJU Int 2008; 102:1560-1565.
26. Wolters T, Vissers KJ, Bangma CH, et al. The value of EZH2, p27(kip1), BMI-1 and MIB-1 on biopsy specimens with low-risk prostate cancer in selecting men with significant prostate cancer at prostatectomy. BJU Int 2010; 106:280-286. This article shows that molecular markers may play a role in the inclusion of patients for active surveillance, but that prospective studies are needed.
27. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Wheeler TM, et al. Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J Urol 2003; 170:1792-1797. (Pubitemid 37254930)
28. Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, et al. Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol 2007; 177:107-112. (Pubitemid 44879468)
29. van Vugt HA, Roobol MJ, van der Poel HG, et al. Selecting men diagnosed with prostate cancer for active surveillance using a risk calculator: a prospective impact study. BJU Int 2011. This article shows that the compliance of physicians and patients to risk assessment tools stratifying patients for active surveillance are well accepted and followed in 82% of cases.
30. Lane JA, Hamdy FC, Martin RM, et al. Latest results from the UK trials evaluating prostate cancer screening and treatment: the CAP and ProtecT studies. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46:3095-3101.
31. Venderbos LDF, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ et al. Urologists' opinion about active surveillance: a Dutch perspective. In: Presented at Active Surveillance for Low Risk Prostate Cancer; 12-13 January 2012; Rotterdam, the Netherlands.