Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer - A systematic review

Journal of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 109, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 830-835

  Thomsen, Frederik B ^a   Brasso, Klaus ^a   Klotz, Laurence H ^b   Røder, M Andreas ^a   Berg, Kasper D ^a   Iversen, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

active surveillance; progression criteria; prostate cancer; selection criteria; systematic review

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER HORMONE THERAPY; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; COMORBIDITY; EXTERNAL BEAM RADIOTHERAPY; GLEASON SCORE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; PROGRESSION CRITERIA; PROSTATE CANCER; SELECTION CRITERIA; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

DISEASE PROGRESSION; HUMANS; MALE; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84900535020     PISSN: 00224790     EISSN: 10969098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jso.23584     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al.: Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1708-1717.
2. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al.: Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 203-213.
3. Beauval JB, Ploussard G, Soulie M, et al.: Pathologic findings in radical prostatectomy specimens from patients eligible for active surveillance with highly selective criteria: A multicenter study. Urology 2012; 80: 656-660.
4. Mullins JK, Han M, Pierorazio PM, et al.: Radical prostatectomy outcome in men 65 years old or older with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 187: 1620-1625.
5. Johansson JE, Andren O, Andersson SO, et al.: Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2004; 291: 2713-2719.
6. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J:, 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005; 293: 2095-2101.
7. Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R, et al.: A competing-risks analysis of survival after alternative treatment modalities for prostate cancer patients: 1988-2006. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 88-95.
8. Brasso K, Friis S, Juel K, et al.: Mortality of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with observation for 10 years or longer: A population based registry study. J Urol 1999; 161: 524-528.
9. Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C, et al.: Feasibility study: Watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. J Urol 2002; 167: 1664-1669.
10. Parker C:, Active surveillance: An individualized approach to early prostate cancer. BJU Int 2003; 92: 2-3.
11. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, et al.: Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 2007; 177: 2106-2131.
12. Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B, et al.: NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010; 8: 162-200.
13. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al.: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 61-71.
14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al.: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339: b2535.
15. Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, et al.: Oxford centre for evidence-based medicine levels of evidence. http://www.cebm.net/?o=1025. 2009. 17-12-2013.
16. Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al.: Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008; 112: 2664-2670.
17. Ercole B, Marietti SR, Fine J, et al.: Outcomes following active surveillance of men with localized prostate cancer diagnosed in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2008; 180: 1336-1339.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Ischia JJ, Pang CY, Tay YK, et al.: Active surveillance for prostate cancer: An Australian experience. BJU Int 2012; 109: 40-43.
22. Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Zhu X, et al.: Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 110: 1672-1677.
23. Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, et al.: Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 101-107.
24. Thomsen FB, Roder MA, Hvarness H, et al.: Active surveillance can reduce overtreatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dan Med J 2013; 60: A4575.
25. Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K, et al.: Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 981-987.
26. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al.: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969-974.
27. Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, et al.: Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer 2004; 101: 2001-2005.
28. Outzen M, Brasso K, Martinussen N, et al.: Prostate cancer in Denmark 1978-2009 - Trends in incidence and mortality. Acta Oncol 2013; 52: 831-836.
29. Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC, et al.: Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011; 185: 869-875.
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. van den Bergh RC, Albertsen PC, Bangma CH, et al.: Timing of curative treatment for prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 204-215.
32. Andrews SF, Horwitz EM, Feigenberg SJ, et al.: Does a delay in external beam radiation therapy after tissue diagnosis affect outcome for men with prostate carcinoma ? Cancer 2005; 104: 299-304.
33. Kwan W, Pickles T, Duncan G, et al.: Relationship between delay in radiotherapy and biochemical control in prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 66: 663-668.
34. Abern MR, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, et al.: Delayed radical prostatectomy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer is associated with biochemical recurrence: Possible implications for active surveillance from the SEARCH database. Prostate 2013; 73: 409-417.
35. Vickers A, Bennette C, Steineck G, et al.: Individualized estimation of the benefit of radical prostatectomy from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group randomized trial. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 204-209.
36. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Jr., Amin MB, et al.: The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228-1242.
37. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, et al.: Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 1248-1253.
38. Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF, et al.: Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 228-234.
39. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al.: Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 981-990.
40. Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K, et al.: Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185: 477-482.
41. Berg KD, Toft BG, Roder MA, et al.: Prostate needle biopsies: Interobserver variation and clinical consequences of histopathological re-evaluation. APMIS 2011; 119: 239-246.
42. Berg KD, Toft BG, Roder MA, et al.: Is it possible to predict low-volume and insignificant prostate cancer by core needle biopsies ? APMIS 2013; 121: 257-265.
43. Thomsen FB, Christensen IJ, Brasso K, et al.: PSA doubling time as a progression criterion in an active surveillance programme for patients with localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 2013; [Epub ahead of print].
44. Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, et al.: Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 2013; 189: S12-S17.
45. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, et al.: Is repeat prostate biopsy associated with a greater risk of hospitalization? Data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 2013; 189: 867-870.
46. Ehdaie B, Vertosick E, Spaliviero M, et al.: The impact of repeat biopsies on infectious complications in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 2014; 191: 660-664.
47. Jain S, Vesprini D, Mamedov A, et al.: Gleason upgrading with time in a large, active surveillance cohort with long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: (suppl 6; abstr 1). http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/106437-134
48. O'Brien MF, Cronin AM, Fearn PA, et al.: Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) velocity and doubling time are associated with outcome but neither improves prediction of outcome beyond pretreatment PSA alone in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 3591-3597.
49. Ross AE, 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. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 2810-2816.
50. Fall K, Garmo H, Andren O, et al.: Prostate-specific antigen levels as a predictor of lethal prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 526-532.
51. Thomsen FB, Roder MA, Hvarness H, et al.: Active surveillance for patients with low-risk prostate cancer: How does PSA doubling time affect the risk of histo-pathological progression at re-biopsy ? Urol Suppl 2012; 80: 1-35; POD-0805.
52. Loeb S, Metter EJ, Kan D, et al.: Prostate-specific antigen velocity (PSAV) risk count improves the specificity of screening for clinically significant prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 109: 508-513.
53. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, Bangma CH, et al.: Is prostate-specific antigen velocity selective for clinically significant prostate cancer in screening? European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (Rotterdam). Eur Urol 2009; 55: 385-392.
54. Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, et al.: Assessing prostate cancer risk: Results from the prostate cancer prevention trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 529-534.
55. 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 2012; 61: 370-377.
56. Vasarainen H, Lokman U, Ruutu M, et al.: Prostate cancer active surveillance and health-related quality of life: Results of the Finnish arm of the prospective trial. BJU Int 2012; 109: 1614-1619.
57. 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: E171-E178.
58. 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.
59. Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ, et al.: The predictive value of endorectal 3 tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2013; 190: 1728-1734.
60. Demichelis F, Fall K, Perner S, et al.: TMPRS S2: ERG gene fusion associated with lethal prostate cancer in a watchful waiting cohort. Oncogene 2007; 26: 4596-4599.
61. Nguyen PN, Violette P, Chan S, et al.: A panel of TMPRS S2: ERG fusion transcript markers for urine-based prostate cancer detection with high specificity and sensitivity. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 407-414.
62. Lin DW, Newcomb LF, Brown EC, et al.: Urinary TMPRS S2: ERG and PCA3 in an active surveillance cohort: Results from a baseline analysis in the canary prostate active surveillance study. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19: 2442-2450.
63. Carlsson J, Davidsson S, Helenius G, et al.: A miRNA expression signature that separates between normal and malignant prostate tissues. Cancer Cell Int 2011; 11: 14.
64. Berg KD, Vainer B, Thomsen FB, et al. ERG protein expression in diagnostic specimens is associated with increased risk of progression during active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014.