Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: Guideline recommendations

Journal of the Canadian Urological Association

Volumn 9, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 171-178

  Morash, Chris ^a   Tey, Rovena ^b   Agbassi, Chika ^b   Klotz, Laurence ^c   McGowan, Tom ^d   Srigley, John ^e   Evans, Andrew ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^d The Cancer Centre Bahamas and The Cancer Centre Eastern Caribbean   (Canada)

^e CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84931837246     PISSN: 19116470     EISSN: 19116470     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.2806     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Dahabreh I, Chung M, Balk EM, et al. Active surveillance in men with localized prostate cancer: A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:582-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-156-8-201204170-00009
2. Moyer VA; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:120-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459
3. Brimo F, Montironi R, Egevad L, et al. Contemporary grading for prostate cancer: Implications for patient care. Eur Urol 2013;63:892-901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.10.015
4. Liu JJ, Lichtensztajn DY, Gomez SL, et al, Nationwide prevalence of lymph node metastases in Gleason score 3+3=6 prostate cancer. Pathology 2014;46:306-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PAT.0000000000000097
5. Kravchick S, Peled R, Cytron S. Watchful waiting and active surveillance approach in patients with low risk localized prostatic cancer: An experience of out-patients clinic with 12-year follow-up. Pathol Oncol Res 2011;17:893-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12253-011-9400-0
6. Roemeling S, Roobol M, Postma R, et al. Management and survival of screen-detected prostate cancer patients who might have been suitable for active surveillance. Eur Urol 2006;50:475-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.04.019
7. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol 2009;55:1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.007
8. Ischia JJ, Pang CY, Tay YK, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: An Australian experience. BJU Int 2012;109(Suppl. 3):40-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11045.x
9. 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;171:1520-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000118224.54949.78
10. 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;180:1336-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.027
11. Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: The PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2013;63:597-603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005
12. 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;29:2185-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112
13. Klotz L. Active surveillance: The Canadian experience. Curr Opin Urol 2012;22:222-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e328352598c
14. Stattin P, Holmberg E, Johansson JE, et al. Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:950-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq154
15. Dall’Era MA, Cowan JE, Simko J, et al. Surgical management after active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: Pathological outcomes compared with men undergoing immediate treatment. BJU Int 2010;107:1232-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09589.x
16. Iremashvili V, Manoharan M, Rosenberg DL, et al. Pathological findings at radical prostatectomy in patients initially managed by active surveillance: A comparative analysis. Prostate 2012;72:1573-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pros.22507
17. Sugimoto M, Shiraishi T, Tsunemori H, et al. Pathological findings at radical prostatectomy in Japanese prospective active surveillance cohort. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2010;40:973-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyq082
18. Warlick C, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Delayed versus immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:355-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj072
19. Radomski L, Gani J, Trottier G, et al. Active surveillance failure for prostate cancer: Does the delay in treatment increase the risk of urinary incontinence? Can J Urol 2012;19:6287-92.
20. Wilt T, Brawer M, Jones K, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;367:203-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1113162
21. Soloway M, Soloway C, 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;58:831-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.027
22. Fujita K, Landis P, McNeil B, et al. Serial prostate biopsies are associated with an increased risk of erectile dysfunction in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 2009;182:2664-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.044
23. Weissbach L, Altwein J. Active surveillance or active treatment in localized prostate cancer? [German, English]. Dtsch Arzteblatt Int 2009;106:371-6.
24. Steineck G, Helgesen F, Adolfsson J, et al. Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. N Engl J Med 2002;347:790-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa021483
25. Van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Gleason score 7 screen-detected prostate cancers initially managed expectantly: Outcomes in 50 men. BJU Int 2009;103:1472-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08281.x
26. Amin MB, Lin DW, Gore JL, et al. The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, the New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014;138:1387-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2014-0219-SA. Epub 2014 Aug 5.
27. Egevad L, Ahmad AS, Algaba F, et al, Standardization of Gleason grading among 337 European pathologists. Histopathology 2013;62:247-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/his.12008
28. Fleshner NE, Lucia MS, Egerdie B, et al. Dutasteride in localised prostate cancer management: The REDEEM randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2012;379:1103-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61619-X
29. Grimaldi J, Fleshner N, Deboer G, et al. Outcomes of 200 patients with localized prostate cancer enrolled in a watchful waiting protocol. Urol Oncol 2002;2:93-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1561095021000003142
30. Ng MK, Van As N, Thomas K, et al. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics in untreated, localized prostate cancer: PSA velocity vs PSA doubling time. BJU Int 2008;103:872-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08116.x
31. Zhang L, Loblaw A, Klotz L. Modeling prostate specific antigen kinetics in patients on active surveillance. J Urol 2006;176:1392-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.06.103
32. Finelli A, Trottier G, Lawrentschuk N, et al. Impact of 5alpha-reductase inhibitors on men followed by active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011;59:509-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.018
33. Stephenson AJ, Aprikian AG, Souhami L, et al. Utility of PSA doubling time in follow-up of untreated patients with localized prostate cancer. Urology 2002;59:652-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01526-1
34. Seiler D, Randazzo M, Klotz L, et al. Pathological stage distribution in patients treated with radical prostatectomy reflecting the need for protocol-based active surveillance: Results from a contemporary European patient cohort. BJU Int 2011;110:195-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10707.x
35. Hilton JF, Blaschko SD, Whitson JM, et al. The impact of serial prostate biopsies on sexual function in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2012;188:1252-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.06.013
36. Margel D, Yap SA, Lawrentschuk N, et al. Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: A prospective cohort study. J Urol 2012;187:1247-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.112
37. Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer 2013;119:3359-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28216
38. Abd-Alazeez M, Ahmed HU, Arya M, et al. Can multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict upgrading of transrectal ultrasound biopsy results at more definitive histology? Urol Oncol 2014;32:741-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.01.008
39. 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;28:126-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2180
40. Sanders A, Buchan N. Infection-related hospital admissions after transrectal biopsy of the prostate. ANZ J Surg 2013;83:246-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ans.12073
41. Pinkhasov GI, Lin YK, Palmerola R, et al. Complications following prostate needle biopsy requiring hospital admission or emergency department visits–experience from 1000 consecutive cases. BJU Int 2012;110:369-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10926.x
42. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) may increase the risk of a more serious form of prostate cancer. June 9th 2011. http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/ucm258314.htm. Accessed May 19, 2015.
43. Klotz L, Chetner M, Chin J, et al. Canadian Consensus Conference: The FDA decision on the use of 5ARIs. Can Urol Assoc J 2012;6:83-8.
44. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Filen R, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: The Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 Randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:1144-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn255
45. Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008;112:2664-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23502
46. Aizer AA, Paly JJ, Zietman AL, et al. Multidisciplinary care and pursuit of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:3071-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.42.8466
47. Khan M, Carter H, Epstein J, et al. Can prostate specific antigen derivatives and pathological parameters predict significant change in expectant management criteria for prostate cancer? J Urol 2003;170:2274-8.
48. Ross A, 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;28:2810-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.7311