Active surveillance for prostate cancer: Current evidence and contemporary state of practice

Nature Reviews Urology

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 205-215

  Tosoian, Jeffrey J ^a   Carter, H Ballentine ^a   Lepor, Abbey ^b   Loeb, Stacy ^b,c  

^a DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

AFRICAN AMERICAN; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER REGISTRY; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; KINETICS; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MALE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; METASTASIS; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; REVIEW; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TRENDS; WATCHFUL WAITING;

DISEASE MANAGEMENT; DISEASE PROGRESSION; HUMANS; MALE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84960172691     PISSN: 17594812     EISSN: 17594820     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2016.45     Document Type: Review

References (103)

1. Schröder F. H, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow up. Lancet. 384, 2027-2035 (2014).
2. Bill-Axelson A, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 370, 932-942 (2014).
3. Wilt T. J, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 203-213 (2012).
4. Loeb S, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 65, 1046-1055 (2014).
5. Heijnsdijk E. A. M, et al. Quality-of life effects of prostate-specific antigen screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 595-605 (2012).
6. Cooperberg M. R, Carroll P. R, & Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 3669-3676 (2011).
7. Choo R, 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. 167, 1664-1669 (2002).
8. Carter H. B, Walsh P. C, Landis P, & Epstein J. I. Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results. J. Urol. 167, 1231-1234 (2002).
9. Cooperberg M. R, Broering J. M, Kantoff P. W, & Carroll P. R. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J. Urol. 178, S14-S19 (2007).
10. Cooperberg M. R, & Carroll P. R. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013. JAMA. 314, 80-82 (2015).
11. Murphy D. G, & Loeb S. Prostate cancer: growth of AS in the USA signals reduction in overtreatment. Nat. Rev. Urol. 12, 604-605 (2015).
12. Ingimarsson J. P, Celaya M. O, Laviolette M, Rees J. R, & Hyams E. S. Trends in initial management of prostate cancer in New Hampshire. Cancer Causes Control. 26, 923-929 (2015).
13. Womble P. R, et al. Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 67, 44-50 (2014).
14. Filson C. P, et al. Expectant management of veterans with early-stage prostate cancer. Cancer. 122, 626-633 (2015).
15. Loeb S, Berglund A, & Stattin P. Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J. Urol. 190, 1742-1749 (2013).
16. Weerakoon M, et al. The current use of active surveillance in an Australian cohort of men: a pattern of care analysis from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry. BJU Int. 115 (Suppl.), 50-56 (2015).
17. Mitsuzuka K, et al. Current use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: a nationwide survey in Japan. Int. J. Urol. 22, 754-759 (2015).
18. Louis A. S, et al. Oncologic outcomes following radical prostatectomy in the active surveillance era. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 7, E475-E480 (2013).
19. Huland H, & Graefen M. Changing trends in surgical management of prostate cancer: the end of overtreatment? Eur. Urol. 68, 175-178 (2015).
20. Tosoian J. J, et al. Intermediate and longer-Term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 3379-3385 (2015).
21. Klotz L, et al. Long-Term follow up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 272-277 (2015).
22. Godtman R. A, 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. 63, 101-107 (2013).
23. Welty C. J, et al. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J. Urol. 193, 807-811 (2015).
24. Selvadurai E. D, et al. Medium-Term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 64, 981-987 (2013).
25. Thompson J. E, et al. Medium-Term oncological outcomes for extended versus saturation biopsy and transrectal versus transperineal biopsy in active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 115, 884-891 (2015).
26. Bul M, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur. Urol. 63, 597-603 (2013).
27. Thomsen F. B, Røder M. A, Hvarness H, Iversen P, & Brasso K. Active surveillance can reduce overtreatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dan. Med. J. 60, A4575 (2013).
28. Soloway M. S, et al. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur. Urol. 58, 831-835 (2010).
29. Epstein J. I, Walsh P. C, & Brendler C. B. Radical prostatectomy for impalpable prostate cancer: the Johns Hopkins experience with tumors found on transurethral resection (stages T1A and T1B) and on needle biopsy (stage T1C). J. Urol. 152, 1721-1729 (1994).
30. Bastian P. J, Mangold L. A, Epstein J. I, & Partin A. W. Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. Cancer. 101, 2001-2005 (2004).
31. Mohler J. L, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guideline): Prostate Cancer. Version 2 (2016).
32. Umbehr M. H, et al. Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration is positively associated with rate of disease reclassification on subsequent active surveillance prostate biopsy in men with low PSA density. BJU Int. 113, 561-567 (2014).
33. Faisal F. A, et al. Outcomes of men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level as their sole preoperative intermediate- or high-risk feature. BJU Int. 114, E120-E129 (2014).
34. Reese A. C, Landis P, Han M, Epstein J. I, & Carter H. B. Expanded criteria to identify men eligible for active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer at Johns Hopkins: a preliminary analysis. J. Urol. 190, 2033-2038 (2013).
35. Loeb S, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur. Urol. 67, 619-626 (2015).
36. Adamy A, et al. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J. Urol. 185, 477-482 (2011).
37. Soloway M. S, et al. Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int. 101, 165-169 (2008).
38. Ross A. E, et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 2810-2816 (2010).
39. Whitson J. M, et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J. Urol. 185, 1656-1660 (2011).
40. Klotz L. Defining ?progression? and triggers for curative intervention during active surveillance. Curr. Opin. Urol. 25, 258-266 (2015).
41. Iremashvili V, et al. Comprehensive analysis of post-diagnostic prostate-specific antigen kinetics as predictor of a prostate cancer progression in active surveillance patients. BJU Int. 111, 396-403 (2013).
42. Patel H. D, et al. Prostate specific antigen velocity risk count predicts biopsy reclassification for men with very low risk prostate cancer. J. Urol. 191, 629-637 (2013).
43. San Francisco I. F, et al. Risk stratification and validation of prostate specific antigen density as independent predictor of progression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. J. Urol. 185, 471-476 (2011).
44. Catalona W. J, et al. A multicenter study of [-2]pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. J. Urol. 185, 1650-1655 (2011).
45. Loeb S, et al. The Prostate Health Index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer. J. Urol. 193, 1163-1169 (2014).
46. Tosoian J. J, et al. Association of [-2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. J. Urol. 188, 1131-1136 (2012).
47. 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. 140, 257-263 (2013).
48. Lin D. W, 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, 2442-2450 (2013).
49. Tosoian J. J, et al. Accuracy of PCA3 measurement in predicting short-Term biopsy progression in an active surveillance program. J. Urol. 183, 534-538 (2010).
50. Cornu J. N. N, et al. Urine TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcript integrated with PCA3 score, genotyping, andbiological features are correlated to the results of prostatic biopsies in men at risk of prostate cancer. Prostate. 73, 242-249 (2013).
51. Cuzick J, 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, 1095-1099 (2012).
52. Bishoff J. T, et al. Prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression score generated from biopsy in men treated with prostatectomy. J. Urol. 192, 409-414 (2014).
53. Freedland S. J, et al. Prognostic utility of cell cycle progression score in men with prostate cancer after primary external beam radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 86, 848-853 (2013).
54. Crawford E. D, et al. Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 30, 1025-1031 (2014).
55. Klein E. A, et al. A 17 gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur. Urol. 66, 550-560 (2014).
56. Cullen J, et al. A biopsy-based 17 gene genomic prostate score predicts recurrence after radical prostatectomy and adverse surgical pathology in a racially diverse population of men with clinically low-And intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 68, 123-131 (2014).
57. Blume-Jensen P, et al. Development and clinical validation of an in situ biopsy based multi-marker assay for risk stratification in prostate cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. http://dx.doi.org/.10.1158/.1078-0432.CCR-14-2603 (2015).
58. Hamoen E. H. J, de Rooij M, Witjes J. A, Barentsz J. O, & Rovers M. M. Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-Analysis. Eur. Urol. 67, 1112-1121 (2014).
59. Dianat S. S, et al. Association of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging parameters with histological findings from MRI/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Can. J. Urol. 22, 7965-7972 (2015).
60. Russo F, et al. Detection of prostate cancer index lesions with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp MRI) using whole-mount histological sections as the reference standard. BJU Int. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.13234 (2015).
61. Vargas H. A, et al. Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur. Radiol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6 (2015).
62. Fütterer J. J, et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur. Urol. 68, 1045-1053 (2015).
63. Siddiqui M. M, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 313, 390 (2015).
64. de Cobelli O, et al. Predicting pathological features at radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS ONE. 10, e0139696 (2015).
65. Maxeiner A, et al. Added value of multiparametric ultrasonography in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate in patients with suspicion for prostate cancer. Urology. 86, 108-114 (2015).
66. Meng X, et al. Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-Targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur. Urol. 69, 512-517 (2015).
67. Eggener S. E, et al. Predicting 15 year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 185, 869-875 (2011).
68. Cooperberg M. R, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 228-234 (2011).
69. Bechis S. K, Carroll P. R, & Cooperberg M. R. Impact of age at diagnosis on prostate cancer treatment and survival. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 235-241 (2011).
70. Campodonico F, & Maffezzini M. Active surveillance in young patients with prostate cancer: the unanswered question. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, e211; author reply e212 (2010).
71. Lin D. W, Porter M, & Montgomery B. Treatment and survival outcomes in young men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Cancer. 115, 2863-2871 (2009).
72. Howlader N, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2011. National Cancer Institute [online], http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975-2011/.(2014).
73. Hampson L. A, Cowan J. E, Zhao S, Carroll P. R, & Cooperberg M. R. Impact of age on quality-of life outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 68, 480-486 (2015).
74. McGinley K. F, Tay K. J, & Moul J. W. Prostate cancer in men of African origin. Nat. Rev. Urol. 13, 99-107 (2016).
75. Odom B. D, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer in African American men: a multi-institutional experience. Urology. 83, 364-368 (2014).
76. Silberstein J. L, et al. Active surveillance of prostate cancer in African American men. Urology. 84, 1255-1261 (2014).
77. Ha Y. S, et al. Increased incidence of pathologically nonorgan confined prostate cancer in African- American men eligible for active surveillance. Urology. 81, 831-835 (2013).
78. Sundi D, et al. 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. 31, 2991-2997 (2013).
79. Moul J. W. Prostate cancer: active surveillance in African American men. Nat. Rev. Urol. 10, 311-312 (2013).
80. Iremashvili V, Soloway M. S, Rosenberg D. L, & Manoharan M. Clinical and demographic characteristics associated with prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance. J. Urol. 187, 1594-1600 (2012).
81. Abern M. R, et al. Race is associated with discontinuation of active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: results from the Duke Prostate Center. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 16, 85-90 (2012).
82. Sundi D, et al. Pathologic examination of radical prostatectomies in men with very-low-risk disease at biopsy reveals distinct zonal distribution of cancer in African American men. J. Urol. 191, 60-67 (2013).
83. Pettaway C. A, et al. Prostate specific antigen and pathological features of prostate cancer in black and white patients: a comparative study based on radical prostatectomy specimens. J. Urol. 160, 437-442 (1998).
84. Schreiber D, Chhabra A, Rineer J, Weedon J, & Schwartz D. A. Population-based study of men with low-volume low-risk prostate cancer: does African- American race predict for more aggressive disease? Clin. Genitourin. Cancer. 13, e259-e264 (2015).
85. Pietzak E. J, et al. Impact of race on selecting appropriate patients for active surveillance with seemingly low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 85, 436-440 (2015).
86. Pound C. R, et al. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 281, 1591-1597 (1999).
87. Punnen S, Pavan N, & Parekh D. J. Finding the wolf in sheep?s clothing: the 4Kscore is a novel blood test that can accurately identify the risk of aggressive prostate cancer. Rev. Urol. 17, 3-13 (2015).
88. Sammon J. D, et al. Predicting life expectancy in men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 68, 756-765 (2015).
89. Kent M, & Vickers A. J. A. Systematic literature review of life expectancy prediction tools for patients with localized prostate cancer. J. Urol. 193, 1938-1942 (2015).
90. El Hajj A, et al. Patient selection and pathological outcomes using currently available active surveillance criteria. BJU Int. 112, 471-477 (2013).
91. Ploussard G, et al. Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study of 2,323 patients. Urol. Oncol. 33, 71.e1-71.e9 (2015).
92. Ankerst D. P, et al. Precision medicine in active surveillance for prostate cancer: development of the Canary-Early Detection Research Network Active Surveillance Biopsy Risk Calculator. Eur. Urol. 68, 1083-1088 (2015).
93. Tosoian J. J, et al. Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. J. Urol. 190, 1218-1222 (2013).
94. Mamawala M, et al. Risk prediction tool for grade reclassification in active surveillance. J. Urol. (in the press).
95. Alam R, Carter H. B, Landis P, Epstein J. I, & Mamawala M. Conditional probability of reclassification in an active surveillance program for prostate cancer. J. Urol. 193, 1950-1955 (2015).
96. Linder B. J, et al. Standard and saturation transrectal prostate biopsy techniques are equally accurate among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates. Int. J. Urol. 20, 860-864 (2013).
97. Inoue L. Y. T, Trock B. J, Partin A. W, Carter H. B, & Etzioni R. Modeling grade progression in an active surveillance study. Stat. Med. 33, 930-939 (2014).
98. Radtke J. P, et al. Comparative analysis of transperineal template-saturation prostate biopsy versus MRI-Targeted biopsy with MRI US fusion-guidance. J. Urol. 193, 87-94 (2014).
99. Bjurlin M. A, et al. Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J. Urol. 189, 2039-2046 (2013).
100. Berglund R. K, et al. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J. Urol. 180, 1964-1967; discussion 1967-1968 (2008).
101. Kates M, et al. Indications for intervention during active surveillance of prostate cancer: a comparison of the Johns Hopkins and PRIAS protocols. BJU Int. 115, 216-222 (2014).
102. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. About NCCN. [online], http://www.nccn.org/about/
103. Pierorazio P. M, Walsh P. C, Partin A. W, & Epstein J. I. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 111, 753-760 (2013).