Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review

European Urology

Volumn 65, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 1023-1031

  Van Den Bergh, Roderick C N ^a   Ahmed, Hashim U ^b   Bangma, Chris H ^c   Cooperberg, Matthew R ^d   Villers, Arnauld ^e   Parker, Christopher C ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e UNIV LILLE   (France)

^f ROYAL MARSDEN HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Expectant management; Histopathology; Markers; MRI; Prostate cancer; PSA; Urinary

Indexed keywords

TUMOR MARKER; PROSTATE CANCER ANTIGEN 3, HUMAN; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; TUMOR ANTIGEN;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; CANCER GRADING; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RISK; CANCER SIZE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; FOLLOW UP; GENETIC MARKER; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; LOW RISK POPULATION; MEDLINE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT MONITORING; PATIENT SELECTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROTEIN BLOOD LEVEL; PROTEIN URINE LEVEL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TIME TO TREATMENT; BLOOD; GENETICS; MALE; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTOR; URINE; WATCHFUL WAITING;

ANTIGENS, NEOPLASM; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTORS; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84899434028     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: 18737560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.027     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. P.A. Ganz, J.M. Barry, and W. Burke et al. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer Ann Intern Med 156 2012 591 595
2. A. Heidenreich, P.J. Bastian, and J. Bellmunt et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent - update 2013 Eur Urol 65 2014 124 137
3. Cary KC, Cowan JE, Sanford M, et al. Predictors of pathologic progression on biopsy among men on active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: the value of the pattern of surveillance biopsies. Eur Urol. In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.08.060
4. M.A. Dall'Era, P.C. Albertsen, and C. Bangma et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature Eur Urol 62 2012 976 983
5. M. Bul, X. Zhu, and A. Rannikko et al. Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: results from a prospective observational study Eur Urol 62 2012 195 200
6. P. Stattin, E. Holmberg, and J.E. Johansson et al. Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study J Natl Cancer Inst 102 2010 950 958
7. A. Liberati, D.G. Altman, and J. Tetzlaff et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration PLoS Med 6 2009 e1000100
8. D.H. Lee, K.C. Koo, and S.H. Lee et al. Tumor lesion diameter on diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging could help predict insignificant prostate cancer in patients eligible for active surveillance: preliminary analysis J Urol 190 2013 1213 1217
9. D.H. Lee, K.C. Koo, and S.H. Lee et al. Low-risk prostate cancer patients without visible tumor (T1c) on multiparametric MRI could qualify for active surveillance candidate even if they did not meet inclusion criteria of active surveillance protocol Jpn J Clin Oncol 43 2013 553 558
10. T.J. Guzzo, M.J. Resnick, and D.J. Canter et al. Endorectal T2-weighted MRI does not differentiate between favorable and adverse pathologic features in men with prostate cancer who would qualify for active surveillance Urol Oncol 30 2012 301 305
11. B. Turkbey, H. Mani, and O. Aras et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 268 2013 144 152
12. G. Ploussard, E. Xylinas, and X. Durand 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 108 2011 513 517
13. H.A. Vargas, O. Akin, and A. Afaq et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer J Urol 188 2012 1732 1738
14. V. Fradet, J. Kurhanewicz, and J.E. Cowan et al. Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging Radiology 256 2010 176 183
15. L. Stamatakis, M.M. Siddiqui, and J.W. Nix et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer Cancer 119 2013 3359 3366
16. H. Vasarainen, K. Lahdensuo, R. Savolainen, M. Ruutu, K. Taari, and A. Rannikko Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance one year after diagnosis and before repeat biopsy Scand J Urol 47 2013 456 461
17. D. Margel, S.A. Yap, and N. Lawrentschuk et al. Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study J Urol 187 2012 1247 1252
18. J.K. Mullins, D. Bonekamp, and P. Landis et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance BJU Int 111 2013 1037 1045
19. N.J. van As, N.M. de Souza, and S.F. Riches et al. A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance Eur Urol 56 2009 981 988
20. D.M. Somford, C.M. Hoeks, and C.A. Hulsbergen-van de Kaa et al. Evaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at inclusion in an active surveillance protocol for low-risk prostate cancer Invest Radiol 48 2013 152 157
21. V.A. Morgan, S.F. Riches, and K. Thomas et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring prostate cancer progression in patients managed by active surveillance Br J Radiol 84 2011 31 37
22. J.J. Tosoian, S. Loeb, and Z. Feng et al. Association of [-2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer J Urol 188 2012 1131 1136
23. D.V. Makarov, S. Isharwal, and L.J. Sokoll et al. Pro-prostate-specific antigen measurements in serum and tissue are associated with treatment necessity among men enrolled in expectant management for prostate cancer Clin Cancer Res 15 2009 7316 7321
24. N.J. van As, A.R. Norman, and K. Thomas et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance Eur Urol 54 2008 1297 1305
25. M.A. Khan, H.B. Carter, and J.I. Epstein et al. Can prostate specific antigen derivatives and pathological parameters predict significant change in expectant management criteria for prostate cancer? J Urol 170 2003 2274 2278
26. R. Venkitaraman, K. Thomas, and P. Grace et al. Serum micronutrient and antioxidant levels at baseline and the natural history of men with localised prostate cancer on active surveillance Tumour Biol 31 2010 97 102
27. D.W. Lin, L.F. Newcomb, and E.C. Brown et al. Urinary TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 in an active surveillance cohort: results from a baseline analysis in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study Clin Cancer Res 19 2013 2442 2450
28. J.J. Tosoian, S. Loeb, and A. Kettermann et al. Accuracy of PCA3 measurement in predicting short-term biopsy progression in an active surveillance program J Urol 183 2010 534 538
29. C. Whelan, M. Kawachi, and D.D. Smith et al. Expressed prostatic secretion biomarkers improve stratification of NCCN active surveillance candidates: performance of secretion capacity and TMPRSS2:ERG models J Urol 191 2014 220 226
30. H. Nakanishi, J. Groskopf, and H.A. Fritsche et al. PCA3 molecular urine assay correlates with prostate cancer tumor volume: implication in selecting candidates for active surveillance J Urol 179 2008 1804 1809
31. G. Ploussard, X. Durand, and E. Xylinas et al. Prostate cancer antigen 3 score accurately predicts tumour volume and might help in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance Eur Urol 59 2011 422 429
32. D.V. Makarov, C. Marlow, and J.I. Epstein et al. Using nuclear morphometry to predict the need for treatment among men with low grade, low stage prostate cancer enrolled in a program of expectant management with curative intent Prostate 68 2008 183 189
33. S. Isharwal, D.V. Makarov, and H.B. Carter et al. DNA content in the diagnostic biopsy for benign-adjacent and cancer-tissue areas predicts the need for treatment in men with T1c prostate cancer undergoing surveillance in an expectant management programme BJU Int 105 2010 329 333
34. S. Isharwal, D.V. Makarov, and L.J. Sokoll 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 77 2011 763
35. S. Jhavar, J. Bartlett, and G. Kovacs et al. Biopsy tissue microarray study of Ki-67 expression in untreated, localized prostate cancer managed by active surveillance Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 12 2009 143 147
36. C.L. Goh, E.J. Saunders, and D.A. Leongamornlert et al. Clinical implications of family history of prostate cancer and genetic risk single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) profiles in an active surveillance cohort BJU Int 112 2013 666 673
37. B.B. McGuire, B.T. Helfand, and S. Kundu et al. Association of prostate cancer risk alleles with unfavourable pathological characteristics in potential candidates for active surveillance BJU Int 110 2012 338 343
38. A.B. Rosenkrantz, V. Prabhu, E.E. Sigmund, J.S. Babb, F.M. Deng, and S.S. Taneja Utility of diffusional kurtosis imaging as a marker of adverse pathologic outcomes among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates undergoing radical prostatectomy AJR Am J Roentgenol 201 2013 840 846
39. L. Dickinson, H.U. Ahmed, and C. Allen et al. Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? J Magn Reson Imaging 37 2013 48 58
40. P.M. Bossuyt, and J.B. Reitsma Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. The STARD initiative Lancet 361 2003 71
41. M.S. Pepe, Z. Feng, H. Janes, P.M. Bossuyt, and J.D. Potter Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification or prediction: standards for study design J Natl Cancer Inst 100 2008 1432 1438
42. E.A. Klein A genomic approach to active surveillance: a step toward precision medicine Asian J Androl 15 2013 340 341
43. J. Cuzick, D.M. Berney, and G. Fisher et al. Prognostic value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort Br J Cancer 106 2012 1095 1099
44. E.D. Selvadurai, M. Singhera, and K. Thomas et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer Eur Urol 64 2013 981 987
45. T.A. Stamey, F.S. Freiha, and J.E. McNeal et al. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer Cancer 71 Suppl 1993 933 938
46. M.H. Winkler, N. Livni, E.M. Mannion, D. Hrouda, and T. Christmas Characteristics of incidental prostatic adenocarcinoma in contemporary radical cystoprostatectomy specimens BJU Int 99 2007 554 558
47. H.U. Ahmed, M. Arya, A. Freeman, and M. Emberton Do low-grade and low-volume prostate cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy? Lancet Oncol 13 2012 e509 e517