Active surveillance for prostate cancer

International Journal of Urology

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 211-218

  Romero Otero, Javier ^a   García Gómez, Borja ^a   Duarte Ojeda, José M ^a   Rodríguez Antolín, Alfredo ^a   Vilaseca, Antoni ^b   Carlsson, Sigrid V ^b,c   Touijer, Karim A ^b  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO 12 DE OCTUBRE   (Spain)

^b MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Biological markers; Biopsy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostatic neoplasms

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROTEOME; ANDROGEN; ANTIANDROGEN;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; BACTEREMIA; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RISK; CANCER SIZE; CANCER SPECIFIC SURVIVAL; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HEMATURIA; HEMOSPERMIA; HUMAN; INFECTION COMPLICATION; LOW RISK PATIENT; MALE; MORBIDITY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROTEOMICS; REVIEW; TRANSPERINEAL BIOPSY; TUMOR BIOPSY; URINE RETENTION; WATCHFUL WAITING; BLOOD; CANCER GRADING; DISEASE COURSE; ECONOMICS; HEALTH SERVICE; METABOLISM; MORTALITY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; STANDARDS;

ANDROGEN ANTAGONISTS; ANDROGENS; DISEASE PROGRESSION; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL OVERUSE; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84959521142     PISSN: 09198172     EISSN: 14422042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/iju.13016     Document Type: Review

References (71)

1. Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur. Urol. 2012; 61: 1079-92.
2. Jahn JL, Giovannucci EL, Stampfer MJ. The high prevalence of undiagnosed prostate cancer at autopsy: implications for epidemiology and treatment of prostate cancer in the Prostate-specific Antigen-era. Int. J. Cancer 2015; 137: 2795-802.
3. Ip S, Dahabreh IJ, Chung M et al. An evidence review of active surveillance in men with localized prostate cancer. Evid. Report Technol. Assess. 2011; 204: 1-341.
4. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012; 367: 203-13.
5. Popiolek M, Rider JR, Andrén O et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer: a final report from three decades of follow-up. Eur. Urol. 2013; 63: 428-35.
6. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005; 293: 2095-101.
7. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014; 370: 932-42.
8. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2011; 60: 291-303.
9. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271: 368-74.
10. 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: 121-5.
11. Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE, Simko JP, Wheeler TM, Epstein JI. Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) ≤6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes? Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2012; 36: 1346-52.
12. Algaba F, Arce Y, Oliver A, Barandica C, Santaularia JMA, Montañés R. Prognostic parameters other than Gleason score for the daily evaluation of prostate cancer in needle biopsy. Eur. Urol. 2005; 48: 566-71.
13. Dall'Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur. Urol. 2012; 62: 976-83.
14. Tosoian JJ, JohnBull E, Trock BJ et al. Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. J. Urol. 2013; 190: 1218-22.
15. 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.
16. Klotz L, Vesprini S. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015; 33: 272-7.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, Eggener SE, Eastham JA, Guillonneau BD. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J. Urol. 2008; 180: 1964-7; discussion 1967-8.
20. van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur. Urol. 2008; 54: 1297-305.
21. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, 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. Eur. Urol. 2010; 58: 831-5.
22. 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: 374-83.
23. Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2014; 65: 1046-55.
24. Labrie F, Candas B, Dupont A et al. Screening decreases prostate cancer death: first analysis of the 1988 Quebec prospective randomized controlled trial. Prostate 1999; 38: 83-91.
25. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd et al.; PLCO Project Team. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2012; 104: 125-32.
26. Pinsky PF, Blacka A, Kramer BS, Miller A, Prorok PC, Berg C. Assessing contamination and compliance in the prostate component of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Clin. Trials 2010; 7: 303-11.
27. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al.; ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 2014; 384: 2027-35.
28. Carlsson S, Vickers AJ, Roobol M et al. Prostate cancer screening: facts, statistics, and interpretation in response to the US Preventive Services Task Force Review. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012; 30: 2581-4.
29. Mottet N, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J et al. Guidelines on prostate cancer. 2014. [Cited 18 Nov 2015.] Available from URL: http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/1607-Prostate-Cancer_LRV3.pdf
30. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, Myers L, Bachmann LM, Kleijnen J. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J. Urol. 2006; 175: 1605-12.
31. Taylor JA, Gancarczyk KJ, Fant GV, Mcleod DG. Increasing the number of core samples taken at prostate needle biopsy enhances the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Urology 2002; 60: 841-5.
32. Villa L, Capitanio U, Briganti A et al. The number of cores taken in patients diagnosed with a single microfocus at initial biopsy is a major predictor of insignificant prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2013; 189: 854-9.
33. Ploussard G, Nicolaiew N, Marchand C et al. Prospective evaluation of an extended 21-core biopsy scheme as initial prostate cancer diagnostic strategy. Eur. Urol. 2014; 65: 154-61.
34. Motamedinia P, RiChard JL, McKiernan JM, DeCastro GJ, Benson MC. Role of immediate confirmatory prostate biopsy to ensure accurate eligibility for active surveillance. Urology 2012; 80: 1070-4.
35. Bul M, van den Bergh RCN, Rannikko A et al. Predictors of unfavourable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance program. Eur. Urol. 2012; 61: 370-7.
36. Miocinovic R, Jones JS, Pujara AC, Klein EA, Stephenson AJ. Acceptance and durability of surveillance as a management choice in men with screen-detected, low-risk prostate cancer: improved outcomes with stringent enrollment criteria. Urology 2011; 77: 980-4.
37. 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: 477-82.
38. Hernández V, Blázquez C, de la Peña E, Pérez-Fernández E, Díaz FJ, Llorente C. Active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer. Patient acceptance and results. Actas Urol Españolas 2013; 37: 533-7.
39. Fernandez Gomez JM, Garcia Rodriguez J. Optimization of prostate biopsy in patients considered for active surveillance. The role of the confirmatory biopsy and transperineal techniques. Arch. Esp. Urol. 2014; 67: 409-18.
40. Lecornet E, Ahmed HU, Hu Y et al. The accuracy of different biopsy strategies for the detection of clinically important prostate cancer: a computer simulation. J. Urol. 2012; 188: 974-80.
41. Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T et al. Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology 2008; 71: 191-5.
42. Abdollah F, Novara G, Briganti A et al. Trans-rectal versus trans-perineal saturation rebiopsy of the prostate: is there a difference in cancer detection rate? Urology 2011; 77: 921-5.
43. Takenaka A, Hara R, Hyodo Y et al. Transperineal extended biopsy improves the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate: a comparative study of 6 and 12 biopsy cores. Int. J. Urol. 2006; 13: 10-4.
44. Hossack T, Patel MI, Huo A et al. Location and pathological characteristics of cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens identified by transperineal biopsy compared to transrectal biopsy. J. Urol. 2012; 188: 781-5.
45. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW et al. Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010; 13: 71-7.
46. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur. Urol. 2013; 64: 876-92.
47. 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: 660-4.
48. Braun K, Ahallal Y, Sjoberg DD et al. Effect of repeated prostate biopsies on erectile function in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2014; 191: 744-9.
49. Kakehi Y, Naito S; Japanese Urological Association. Complication rates of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a nation-wide survey in Japan. Int. J. Urol. 2008; 15: 319-21.
50. Hoeks CMA, Somford DM, van Oort IM et al. Value of 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-guided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Invest. Radiol. 2014; 49: 165-72.
51. Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur. Urol. 2015; 67: 627-36.
52. 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: 713-9.
53. Knezevic D, Goddard AD, Natraj N et al. Analytical validation of the Oncotype DX prostate cancer assay - a clinical RT-PCR assay optimized for prostate needle biopsies. BMC Genom. 2013; 14: 690.
54. Sartori DA, Chan DW. Biomarkers in prostate cancer: what's new? Curr. Opin. Oncol. 2014; 26: 259-64.
55. 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; 178: 2359-64; discussion 2364-5.
56. 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: 2810-6.
57. Corcoran NM, Casey RG, Hong MKH et al. The ability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density to predict an upgrade in Gleason score between initial prostate biopsy and prostatectomy diminishes with increasing tumour grade due to reduced PSA secretion per unit tumour volume. BJU Int. 2012; 110: 36-42.
58. Iu PP. ESUR prostate MR guidelines. Eur. Radiol. 2013; 23: 2320-1.
59. Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Kettermann A et al. Accuracy of PCA3 measurement in predicting short-term biopsy progression in an active surveillance program. J. Urol. 2010; 183: 534-8.
60. Nakanishi H, Groskopf J, Fritsche HA et al. PCA3 molecular urine assay correlates with prostate cancer tumor volume: implication in selecting candidates for active surveillance. J. Urol. 2008; 179: 1804-9; discussion 1809-10.
61. Van Poppel H, Haese A, Graefen M et al. The relationship between Prostate CAncer gene 3 (PCA3) and prostate cancer significance. BJU Int. 2012; 109: 360-6.
62. Hirama H, Sugimoto M, Ito K, Shiraishi T, Kakehi Y. The impact of baseline [-2]proPSA-related indices on the prediction of pathological reclassification at 1 year during active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: the Japanese multicenter study cohort. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2014; 140: 257-63.
63. Thomsen FB, Røder MA, Hvarness H, Iversen P, Brasso K. Active surveillance can reduce overtreatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dan. Med. J. 2013; 60: A4575.
64. Kim TH, Jeon HG, Choo SH et al. Pathological upgrading and upstaging of patients eligible for active surveillance according to currently used protocols. Int. J. Urol. 2014; 21: 377-81.
65. Wilson LS, Tesoro R, Elkin EP et al. Cumulative cost pattern comparison of prostate cancer treatments. Cancer 2007; 109: 518-27.
66. Keegan KA, Dall'Era MA, Durbin-Johnson B, Evans CP. Active surveillance for prostate cancer compared with immediate treatment: an economic analysis. Cancer 2012; 118: 3512-8.
67. Hayes JH, Barry MJ, McMahon PM. Observation versus initial treatment for prostate cancer. Ann. Intern. Med. 2013; 159: 574.
68. Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2013; 64: 981-7.
69. 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: 1664-9.
70. Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, Stranne J, Hugosson J. Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur. Urol. 2013; 63: 101-7.
71. Johansson J-E, Andrén O, Andersson S-O et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2004; 291: 2713-9.