Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer

Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

Volumn 85, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 295-302

  Bangma, Chris H ^a   Bul, Meelan ^a   van der Kwast, Theo H ^b   Pickles, Tom ^d   Korfage, Ida J ^a   Hoeks, Caroline M ^e   Steyerberg, Ewout W ^a   Jenster, Guido ^a   Kattan, Michael W ^f   Bellardita, Lara ^c   Carroll, Peter R ^g   Denis, Louis J ^h   Parker, Chris ⁱ   Roobol, Monique J ^a   Emberton, Mark ^j   Klotz, Laurence H ^k   Rannikko, Antti ^l   Kakehi, Yoshiyuki ^m   Lane, Janet A ⁿ   Schröder, Fritz H ^a   Semjonow, Axel ^o   Trock, Bruce J ^p   Valdagni, Riccardo ^c   more..

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^c NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^d BRITISH COLUMBIA CANCER AGENCY   (Canada)

^e RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^f LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^h Oncology Centre of Antwerp   (Belgium)

ⁱ INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^j UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^k SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^l HELSINKI UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^m KAGAWA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^o UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^p JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Biomarkers; Imaging; Nomograms; Overdiagnosis; Prostate cancer; Screening

Indexed keywords

DNA; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; STEROID 5ALPHA REDUCTASE INHIBITOR; TUMOR MARKER;

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIET THERAPY; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; DISEASE MARKER; ELASTOGRAPHY; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; LIFESTYLE MODIFICATION; LOW RISK POPULATION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR;

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; EUROPE; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; MALE; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK; SEER PROGRAM; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84873522061     PISSN: 10408428     EISSN: 18790461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2012.07.005     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Heidenreich A., Bellmunt J., Bolla M., et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. European Urology 2011, 59:61-71.
2. Mohler J., Bahnson R.R., Boston B., et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2010, 8:162-200.
3. Horwich A., Parker C., Bangma C., Kataja V., Group E.G.W. Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology 2010, 21(Suppl 5):v129-v133.
4. Wolf A.M., Wender R.C., Etzioni R.B., et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2010, 60:70-98.
5. Klotz L. Cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Current Opinion in Urology 2012, 22:203-209.
6. Welch H.G., Black W.C. Overdiagnosis in cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2010, 102:605-613.
7. Draisma G., Boer R., Otto S.J., et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2003, 95:868-878.
8. Franks L.M. Latent carcinoma of the prostate. Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology 1954, 68:603-616.
9. Dong F., Kattan M.W., Steyerberg E.W., et al. Validation of pretreatment nomograms for predicting indolent prostate cancer: efficacy in contemporary urological practice. Journal of Urology 2008, 180:150-154.
10. Steyerberg E.W., Roobol M.J., Kattan M.W., van der Kwast T.H., de Koning H.J., Schroder F.H. Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. Journal of Urology 2007, 177:107-112.
11. Roobol M.J. Is prostate cancer screening bad or good? Summary of a debate at the innovation in urology meeting, September 17-19, 2010, Milan, Italy. European Urology 2011, 59:359-362.
12. Kattan M.W. Do we need more nomograms for predicting outcomes in patients with prostate cancer?. Nature Clinical Practice Urology 2008, 5:366-367.
13. van den Bergh R.C., Vasarainen H., van der Poel H.G., et al. Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre 'Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance' study. BJU International 2010, 105:956-962.
14. Klotz L., Zhang L., Lam A., Nam R., Mamedov A., Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2010, 28:126-131.
15. Tosoian J.J., Trock B.J., Landis P., et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2011, 29:2185-2190.
16. Soloway M.S., Soloway C.T., Eldefrawy A., Acosta K., Kava B., Manoharan M. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. European Urology 2010, 58:831-835.
17. van As N.J., Norman A.R., Thomas K., et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. European Urology 2008, 54:1297-1305.
18. Dall'Era M.A., Konety B.R., Cowan J.E., et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008, 112:2664-2670.
19. Parsons J.K., Newman V., Mohler J.L., et al. The Men's Eating and Living (MEAL) study: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B pilot trial of dietary intervention for the treatment of prostate cancer. Urology 2008, 72:633-637.
20. Bul M., Zhu X., Rannikko A., et al. Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: results from a prospective observational study. European Urology 2012, 62:195-200.
21. Warlick C., Trock B.J., Landis P., Epstein J.I., Carter H.B. Delayed versus immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2006, 98:355-357.
22. Dall'Era M.A., Cowan J.E., Simko J., et al. Surgical management after active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: pathological outcomes compared with men undergoing immediate treatment. BJU International 2011, 107:1232-1237.
23. van den Bergh R.C., Steyerberg E.W., Khatami A., et al. Is delayed radical prostatectomy in men with low-risk screen-detected prostate cancer associated with a higher risk of unfavorable outcomes?. Cancer 2010, 116:1281-1290.
24. Holmstrom B., Holmberg E., Egevad L., et al. Outcome of primary versus deferred radical prostatectomy in the national prostate cancer register of sweden follow-up study. Journal of Urology 2010, 184:1322-1327.
25. Shappley W.V., Kenfield S.A., Kasperzyk J.L., et al. Prospective study of determinants and outcomes of deferred treatment or watchful waiting among men with prostate cancer in a nationwide cohort. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2009, 27:4980-4985.
26. Newcomb L.F., Brooks J.D., Carroll P.R., et al. Canary prostate active surveillance study: design of a multi-institutional active surveillance cohort and biorepository. Urology 2010, 75:407-413.
27. Stamey T.A., Freiha F.S., McNeal J.E., Redwine E.A., Whittemore A.S., Schmid H.P. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993, 71:933-938.
28. Epstein J.I., Walsh P.C., Carmichael M., Brendler C.B. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994, 271:368-374.
29. Wolters T., Roobol M.J., van Leeuwen P.J., et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. Journal of Urology 2011, 185:121-125.
30. Epstein J.I., Allsbrook W.C., Amin M.B., Egevad L.L., Committee I.G. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. American Journal of Surgical Pathology 2005, 29:1228-1242.
31. Roobol M.J., Steyerberg E.W., Kranse R., et al. A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. European Urology 2010, 57:79-85.
32. Bangma C.H., Roobol M.J. Defining and predicting indolent and low risk prostate cancer. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 2011, 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2011.10.003.
33. Hu Y., Ahmed H.U., Carter T., et al. A biopsy simulation study to assess the accuracy of several transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-biopsy strategies compared with template prostate mapping biopsies in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy. BJU International 2012, 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10933.x.
34. Taira A.V., Merrick G.S., Bennett A., et al. Transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy as a staging procedure to select patients best suited for active surveillance. American Journal of Clinical Oncology 2012, e639-e1823. 10.1097/COC.0b013e3.
35. Rouse P., Shaw G., Ahmed H.U., Freeman A., Allen C., Emberton M. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging to rule-in and rule-out clinically important prostate cancer in men at risk: a cohort study. Urologia Internationalis 2011, 87:49-53.
36. Ross J.S., Cronin M. Whole cancer genome sequencing by next-generation methods. American Journal of Clinical Pathology 2011, 136:527-539.
37. Roychowdhury S., Iyer M.K., Robinson D.R., et al. Personalized oncology through integrative high-throughput sequencing: a pilot study. Science Translational Medicine 2011, 3:111ra21.
38. Isharwal S., Makarov D.V., Sokoll L.J., et al. ProPSA and diagnostic biopsy tissue DNA content combination improves accuracy to predict need for prostate cancer treatment among men enrolled in an active surveillance program. Urology 2011, 77. 763e1-6.
39. Bul M., van den Bergh R.C., Rannikko A., et al. Predictors of unfavourable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance program. European Urology 2011, 61:370-377.
40. Ross A.E., Loeb S., Landis P., et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2010, 28:2810-2816.
41. Whitson J.M., Porten S.P., Hilton J.F., et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Journal of Urology 2011, 185:1656-1660.
42. Ploussard G., Durand X., Xylinas E., et al. Prostate cancer antigen 3 score accurately predicts tumour volume and might help in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. European Urology 2011, 59:422-429.
43. Tosoian J.J., Loeb S., Kettermann A., et al. Accuracy of PCA3 measurement in predicting short-term biopsy progression in an active surveillance program. Journal of Urology 2010, 183:534-538.
44. Auprich M., Bjartell A., Chun F.K., et al. Contemporary role of prostate cancer antigen 3 in the management of prostate cancer. European Urology 2011, 60:1045-1054.
45. Villers A., Puech P., Mouton D., Leroy X., Ballereau C., Lemaitre L. Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Journal of Urology 2006, 176:2432-2437.
46. Hambrock T., Somford D.M., Huisman H.J., et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011, 259:453-461.
47. Barentsz J.O., Richenberg J., Clements R., et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. European Radiology 2012, 22:746-757.
48. Hoeks C.M., Schouten M.G., Bomers J.G., et al. Three-tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. European Urology 2012, 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.047.
49. Langer D.L., van der Kwast T.H., Evans A.J., et al. Intermixed normal tissue within prostate cancer: effect on MR imaging measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2 - sparse versus dense cancers. Radiology 2008, 249:900-908.
50. Hambrock T., Hoeks C., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C., et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. European Urology 2012, 61:177-184.
51. Salomon G., Kollerman J., Thederan I., et al. Evaluation of prostate cancer detection with ultrasound real-time elastography: a comparison with step section pathological analysis after radical prostatectomy. European Urology 2008, 54:1354-1362.
52. Seitz M., Gratzke C., Schlenker B., et al. Contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound (CE-TRUS) with cadence-contrast pulse sequence (CPS) technology for the identification of prostate cancer. Urologic Oncology 2011, 29:295-301.
53. Semjonow A. The urologist dealing with active surveillance. Presented at active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer 2012.
54. Hayes J.H., Ollendorf D.A., Pearson S.D., et al. Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis. JAMA 2010, 304:2373-2380.
55. Vasarainen H., Lokman U., Ruutu M., Taari K., Rannikko A. Prostate cancer active surveillance and health-related quality of life: results of the Finnish arm of the prospective trial. BJU International 2011, 109:1614-1619.
56. van den Bergh R.C., Essink-Bot M.L., Roobol M.J., et al. Anxiety and distress during active surveillance for early prostate cancer. Cancer 2009, 115:3868-3878.
57. van den Bergh R.C., Essink-Bot M.L., Roobol M.J., Schroder F.H., Bangma C.H., Steyerberg E.W. Do anxiety and distress increase during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer?. Journal of Urology 2010, 183:1786-1791.
58. van den Bergh R.C., Korfage I.J., Bangma C.H. Psychological aspects of active surveillance. Current Opinion in Urology 2012, 22:237-242.
59. Hulbert-Williams N., Neal R., Morrison V., Hood K., Wilkinson C. Anxiety, depression and quality of life after cancer diagnosis: what psychosocial variables best predict how patients adjust?. Psycho-Oncology 2011, 10.1002/pon.1980.
60. Lane J.A., Hamdy F.C., Martin R.M., Turner E.L., Neal D.E., Donovan J.L. Latest results from the UK trials evaluating prostate cancer screening and treatment: the CAP and ProtecT studies. European Journal of Cancer 2010, 46:3095-3101.
61. Lane J.A., Avery K.L., Wade J., Neal D.E., Hamdy F.C., Donovan J.L. Men's experience of long term active monitoring within the ProtecT trial. Presented at active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer 2012.
62. van Vugt H.A., Roobol M.J., Busstra M., et al. Compliance with biopsy recommendations of a prostate cancer risk calculator. BJU International 2011, 109:1480-1488.
63. van den Bergh R.C., Roemeling S., Roobol M.J., et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. European Urology 2009, 55:1-8.
64. Fleshner N.E., Lucia M.S., Egerdie B., et al. Dutasteride in localised prostate cancer management: the REDEEM randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2012, 379:1103-1111.