Management of low risk prostate cancer: Active surveillance and focal therapy

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 270-279

  Klotz, Laurence ^a   Emberton, Mark ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

active surveillance; favorable risk; prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR; GADOLINIUM; PADELIPORFIN; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; VASCULOTROPIN; TUMOR MARKER;

APOPTOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER THERAPY; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; DISEASE SEVERITY; DISEASE SPECIFIC SURVIVAL; GLEASON SCORE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; CANCER GRADING; GENETICS; MALE; METABOLISM; PATHOLOGY; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; WATCHFUL WAITING;

HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; ORGAN SPARING TREATMENTS; PATIENT SELECTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84898538254     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: 14736586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000055     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 2000; 100:57-70.
2. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 2011; 144:646-674.
3. Ahmed H, Arya M, Freeman A, Emberton M. Do low-grade and low-volume prostate cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy? Lancet Oncol 2012; 13:e509-e517.
4. Ross AE, Marchionni L, Vuica-Ross M, et al. Gene expression pathways of high grade localized prostate cancer. Prostate 2011; 71:1568-1577.
5. Skacel M, Ormsby AH, Pettay JD, et al. Aneusomy of chromosomes7, 8, and 17 and amplification of HER-2/neu and epidermal growth factor receptor in Gleason score 7 prostate carcinoma: a differential fluorescent in situ hybridization study of Gleason pattern 3 and 4using tissue microarray. Hum Pathol 2001; 32:1392-1397.
6. Susaki E, Nakayama KI. Multiple mechanisms for p27(Kip1)translocation and degradation. Cell Cycle 2007; 6:3015-3020.
7. Padar A, Sathyanarayana UG, Suzuki M, et al. Inactivation of cyclinD2 gene in prostate cancers by aberrant promoter methylation. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 9:4730-4734.
8. Guo Y, Sklar GN, Borkowski A, Kyprianou N. Loss of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p27(Kip1) protein in humanprostate cancer correlates with tumor grade. Clin Cancer Res 1997; 3:2269-2274.
9. Fleischmann A, Huland H, Mirlacher M, et al. Prognostic relevanceof Bcl-2 overexpression in surgically treated prostate cancer is not caused by increased copy number or translocation of the gene. Prostate 2012; 72: 991-997.
10. Tomlins SA, Mehra R, Rhodes DR, et al. Integrative molecular concept modeling of prostate cancer progression. Nat Genet 2007; 39:41-51.
11. True L, Coleman I, Hawley S, et al. A molecular correlate to the Gleason grading system for prostate adenocarcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006; 103:10991-10996.
12. Bismar TA, Dolph M, Teng LH, et al. ERG protein expression reflects hormonal treatment response and is associated with Gleason score and prostate cancer specific mortality. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48:538-546.
13. Wang J, Cai Y, Ren C, Ittmann M. Expression of variant TMPRSS2/ERG fusion messenger RNAs is associated with aggressive prostate cancer. Cancer Res 2006; 66:8347-8351.
14. West AF, O'Donnell M, Charlton RG, Neal DE. Leung HY Correlation of vascular endothelial growth factor expression with fibroblast growth factor-8 expression and clinico-pathologic parameters in human prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 2001; 85:576-583.
15. Serrano M. Cancer regression by senescence. New Engl J Med 2007; 356:1996-1997.
16. Erbersdobler A, Isbarn H, Dix K, et al. Prognostic value of microvessel density in prostate cancer: a tissue microarray study. World J Urol 2010; 28:687- 692.
17. de Muga S, HernaÂ'ndez S, Salido M, et al. Lloreta J CXCR4 mRNA overexpression in high grade prostate tumors: lack of association with TMPRSS2- ERG rearrangement. Cancer Biomark 2013; 12:21-30.
18. Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE, et al. Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS)< 6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes? Am J Surg Pathol 2012; 36:1346-1352.
19. Eggener S, Scardino P, Walsh P, et al. 20 Year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011; 185:869-875.
20. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005; 293:2095- 2101.
21. Sakr WA, Grignon DJ, Crissman JD, et al. High grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and prostatic adenocarcinoma between the ages of 20-69: an autopsy study of 249 cases. In Vivo 1994; 8:439-443.
22. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancerstatistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010; 60:277-300.
23. 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.
24. Roobol MJ, Kerkhof M, Schroder FH, et al. Auvinen A Prostate cancer mortality reduction by prostate-specific antigen-based screening adjusted for nonattendance and contamination in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Eur Urol 2009; 56:584-591.
25. Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, et al. Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11:725-732.
26. 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.
27. Crawford ED, Grubb R, Black A. Comorbidity and mortality results from a randomized prostate cancer screening trial. JCO 2011; 29:355-361.
28. Kwiatkowski M, Klotz L, Hugosson J, Recker F. Comment on the US Preventive Services Task Force's draft recommendation on screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2012; 61:851-854.
29. Payton S. Prostate cancer: new PSA screening guideline faces widespread opposition. Nat Rev Urol 2012; 9:351.
30. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, et al. Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101:374-383.
31. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, et al. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:126-131.
32. Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2013; 63:597.
33. Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al. Carroll PR Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008; 112:2664-2670.
34. Khatami A. Hugusson PSA DT and surveillance. Int J Cancer 2006; 120:170-174.
35. Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C, et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol 2007; 6:2359-2365.
36. Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, de Vries SH, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancers detected in three subsequent rounds of a screening trial: characteristics, PSA doubling times, and outcome. Eur Urol 2007; 515:1244- 1250.
37. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Williams S, et al. Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int 2008; 101:165-169.
38. Hardie C, Parker C, Norman A, et al. Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2005; 95:956-960.
39. Patel MI, DeConcini DT, Lopez-Corona E, et al. An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy. J Urol 2004; 171:1520-1524.
40. Porten SP, Whitson JM, Cowan JE, et al. Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:2795-2800.
41. Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 188:1732-1738.
42. Krakowsky Y, Loblaw A, Klotz L. Prostate cancer death of men treated with initial active surveillance: clinical and biochemical characteristics. J Urol 2010; 184:131-135.
43. Vickers A. Systematic review of pretreatment PSA velocity and doubling time as PCA predictors. J Clin Oncol 2008; 27:398-403.
44. Loblaw A, Zhang L, Lam A, et al. Comparing prostate specific antigen triggers for intervention in men with stable prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 2010; 184:1942-1946.
45. Esserman L, Thompson I. Solving the overdiagnosis dilemma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102:582-583.
46. Barzell WE, Melamed MR. Appropriate patient selection in the focal treatment of prostate cancer: the role of transperineal 3-dimensional pathologic mapping of the prostate-a 4-year experience. Urology 2007; 70 (6 Suppl):27- 35.
47. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011; 59:477-494.
48. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013; 63:125-140.
49. Crawford ED, Rove KO, Barqawi AB, et al. Clinical-pathologic correlation between transperineal mapping biopsies of the prostate and three-dimensional reconstruction of prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 2013; 73:778- 787.
50. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 2011; 108 (8 Pt 2):E171-E178.
51. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. UK Clinical Guideline Prostate Cancer number 175; Jan 2014. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG175
52. Numao N, Yoshida S, Komai Y, et al. Usefulness of prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables to reduce initial prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2013; 190:502-508.
53. Arumainayagam N, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, et al. Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology 2013; 268:761-769.
54. PROstate MRI Imaging Study: evaluation of multiparametric magnetic imaging in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer (PROMIS) http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN16082556/
55. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013; 64:713-719.
56. Barzell WE, Melamed MR, Cathcart P, et al. Identifying candidates for active surveillance: an evaluation of the repeat biopsy strategy for men with favorable risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 188:762-767.
57. Nafie S, Pal RP, Dormer JP, Khan MA. Transperineal template prostate biopsies in men with raised PSA despite two previous sets of negative TRUS-guided prostate biopsies. World J Urol 2013; Dec 14. [Epub ahead of print]
58. Valerio M, Ahmed HU, Emberton M, et al. The role of focal therapy in the management of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013; Jun 6.
59. Efficacy and Safety Study of TOOKAD1 Soluble for Localised Prostate Cancer Compared to Active Surveillance. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/ NCT01310894
60. Kazer MW, Psutka SP, Latini DM, Bailey DE Jr. Psychosocial aspects of active surveillance. Curr Opin Urol 2013; 23:273-277.
61. Sundi D, Ross AE, Humphreys EB, et al. Schaeffer EM African American men with very low-risk prostate cancer exhibit adverse oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: should active surveillance still be an option for them? J Clin Oncol 2013; 31:2991-2997.
62. Duffield AS, Lee TK, Miyamoto H, Carter HB. Epstein JI Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails. J Urol 2009; 182:2274-2278.
63. Cooperberg M, Simko J, Falzarano S. Development and validation of the biopsy-based genomic prostate score (GPS) as a predictor of high grade or extracapsular prostate cancer to improve patient selection for active surveillance. AUA 2013; Abstract #2131.
64. Cuzick J, Berney DM, Fisher G, Transatlantic Prostate Group. Prognostic value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death on conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Brit J Cancer 2012; 106: 1095-1099.
65. Robinson K, Creed J, Reguly B, et al. Accurate prediction of repeat prostate biopsy outcomes by a mitochondrial DNA deletion assay. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2013; 16:398.