Current Management Strategy for Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer

Current Oncology Reports

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2017, Pages

  Syed, Jamil S ^a   Javier Desloges, Juan ^a   Tatzel, Stephanie ^a   Bhagat, Ansh ^a   Nguyen, Kevin A ^a   Hwang, Kevin ^a   Kim, Sarah ^a   Sprenkle, Preston C ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Biomarkers; Gene assay; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

TUMOR MARKER;

BIOASSAY; BLOOD ANALYSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER PROGNOSIS; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LOW RISK PATIENT; MEDICAL DEVICE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT MONITORING; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; URINALYSIS; BIOPSY; BLOOD; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; MALE; PATHOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTOR;

BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; BIOPSY; DISEASE MANAGEMENT; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT SELECTION; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 85013311781     PISSN: 15233790     EISSN: 15346269     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11912-017-0569-6     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. Tosoian JJ, Carter HB, Lepor A, Loeb S. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13(4):205–15.
2. Coen JJ, Feldman AS, Smith MR, Zietman AL. Watchful waiting for localized prostate cancer in the PSA era: what have been the triggers for intervention? BJU Int. 2011;107(10):1582–6.
3. Ip S, Dahabreh IJ, Chung M, Yu WW, Balk EM, Iovin RC, et al. An evidence review of active surveillance in men with localized prostate cancer. Evid Rep Technol Assess. 2011;204:1–341.
4. 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(5):368–74.
5. Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Partin AW. Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer. 2004;101(9):2001–5.
6. •• Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2013;63(4):597–603. This is the largest observational prospective active surveillance cohort for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide from >100 medical centers. The analysis shows that age, PSA at diagnosis, PSA density, and the number of positive cores at diagnosis (two compared with one) are important predictors for reclassification at repeat biopsy
7. •• Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):272–7. Studies to assess the long-term follow-up for active surveillance cohorts are deficient. This study extends follow-up to 16 years. The 10- and 15-year actuarial CSS rates are 98.1 and 94.3%, respectively. Twenty-five percent of the patients were classified as D’Amico criteria for intermediate risk. Fifteen-year prostate cancer mortality was low. This provides support that in a screened population, selected men older than age 70 years with intermediate-risk prostate cancer would be good candidates for surveillance
8. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, Feng Z, Epstein JI, Partin AW, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(16):2185–90.
9. 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(6):831–5.
10. Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Stauf F, Cooperberg MR, et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer. 2008;112(12):2664–70.
11. •• Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K, Mohammed K, Woode-Amissah R, Horwich A, et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):981–7. The eligibility criteria used in this study are more permissive than other surveillance series. Clinical outcomes reported remain favorable, which at least raises the possibility that eligibility criteria for surveillance could be broadened.
12. NCCN Guidelines Prostate Cancer. National Ceomphrensive Cancer Network. 2016.
13. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):969–74.
14. Bangma CH, Valdagni R, Carroll PR, van Poppel H, Klotz L, Hugosson J. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: developments to date. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):646–8.
15. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16–40.
16. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313(4):390–7.
17. Wysock JS, Mendhiratta N, Zattoni F, Meng X, Bjurlin M, Huang WC, et al. Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric prostate MRI on 12 core biopsy results. BJU Int. 2016
18. Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):627–36.
19. • Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, et al. Targeted prostate biopsy to select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol. 2014;192(2):385–90. When using targeted biopsy, if multiple cores are taken from a reliable mpMRI target, the probability of finding more than two positive cores increases. This may then exceed the Epstein criteria for inclusion of patients in active surveillance. Study results suggest that the Epstein criteria be re-evaluated in men enrolling in active surveillance to0account for the risk inflation seen with targeted prostate biopsy
20. Almeida GL, Petralia G, Ferro M, Ribas CA, Detti S, Jereczek-Fossa BA, et al. Role of multi-parametric magnetic resonance image and PIRADS score in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance according PRIAS criteria. Urol Int. 2016;96(4):459–69.
21. Porpiglia F, Cantiello F, De Luca S, De Pascale A, Manfredi M, Mele F, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and active surveillance: how to better select insignificant prostate cancer? International Journal of Urology. 2016:n/a-n/a.
22. Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, Logan J, Rais-Bahrami S, Walton-Diaz A, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer. 2013;119(18):3359–66.
23. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Akin O, Yu C, Zakian KL, Udo K, et al. Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;109(9):1315–22.
24. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Kattan MW, Pucar D, Kuroiwa K, Chen HN, et al. The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: an initial analysis. BJU Int. 2007;99(4):786–93.
25. Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Epstein JI, Turkbey B, Choyke P, Schaeffer EM. Active surveillance of prostate cancer: use, outcomes, imaging, and diagnostic tools. American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book / ASCO American Society of Clinical Oncology Meeting. 2016;35:e235–e45.
26. Surveillance E, and End Results (SEER) Program (http://www.seer.cancer.gov/) SEER*Stat Database: Incidence - SEER 9 Regs Research Data, Nov 2015 Sub (1973–2013) - Linked To County Attributes - Total U.S., 1969–2014 Counties, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch, released April 2016, based on the November 2015 submission.
27. Andreas D, Tosoian JJ, Landis P, Wolf S, Glavaris S, Lotan TL, et al. Elevated prostate health index (phi) and biopsy reclassification during active surveillance of prostate cancer. Urology case reports. 2016;7:64–6.
28. Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Feng Z, Isharwal S, Landis P, Elliot DJ, et al. Association of [−2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188(4):1131–6.
29. Cantiello F, Russo GI, Cicione A, Ferro M, Cimino S, Favilla V, et al. PHI and PCA3 improve the prognostic performance of PRIAS and Epstein criteria in predicting insignificant prostate cancer in men eligible for active surveillance. World J Urol. 2016;34(4):485–93.
30. Sartori DA, Chan DW. Biomarkers in prostate cancer: what’s new? Curr Opin Oncol. 2014;26(3):259–64.
31. • Punnen S, Pavan N, Parekh DJ. 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. 2015;17(1):3–13. This prospective study involved 26 distinct US urology sites and was the first validation of the four-kallikren panel outside Europe. The 4K score showed excellent discrimination in identifying patients most likely to benefit from biopsy. This information is beneficial for informed decision making to determine if the patient needs a prostate biopsy
32. Parekh DJ, Punnen S, Sjoberg DD, Asroff SW, Bailen JL, Cochran JS, et al. A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate canscer. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):464–70.
33. Punnen S, Steiner M, Zappala S, Palou J, Sjoberg D, Mathur V, Roberts R, Linder V, Reeve M, Okrongly D, Newmark J, Sant G, Morote J, Parekh D. Among men with low-grade prostate cancer on prostate biopsy, the 4Kscore predicts the presence of more aggressive prostate cancer. Madrid: Presented at the Congress of the European Association of Urology; 2015.
34. Lin D, Brown M, Newcomb L, Sjoberg D, Brooks J, Carroll P, Dash A, Norfolk F, Gleave M, Morgan T, Nelson P, Thompson I, Zheng Y. Evaluating the four kallikrein panel of the 4Kscore for prediction of high-grade prostate cancer in men in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS). San Diego: Presented at the American Urologic Association; 2016.
35. Tomlins SA, Day JR, Lonigro RJ, Hovelson DH, Siddiqui J, Kunju LP, et al. Urine TMPRSS2:ERG plus PCA3 for individualized prostate cancer risk assessment. Eur Urol. 2016;70(1):45–53.
36. Tosoian JJ, Ross AE, Sokoll LJ, Partin AW, Pavlovich CP. Urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 2016;43(1):17–38.
37. Deras IL, Aubin SM, Blase A, Day JR, Koo S, Partin AW, et al. PCA3: a molecular urine assay for predicting prostate biopsy outcome. J Urol. 2008;179(4):1587–92.
38. Marks LS, Fradet Y, Deras IL, Blase A, Mathis J, Aubin SM, et al. PCA3 molecular urine assay for prostate cancer in men undergoing repeat biopsy. Urology. 2007;69(3):532–5.
39. Auprich M, Chun FK, Ward JF, Pummer K, Babaian R, Augustin H, et al. Critical assessment of preoperative urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 on the accuracy of prostate cancer staging. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):96–105.
40. Nakanishi H, Groskopf J, Fritsche HA, Bhadkamkar V, Blase A, Kumar SV, et al. PCA3 molecular urine assay correlates with prostate cancer tumor volume: implication in selecting candidates for active surveillance. J Urol. 2008;179(5):1804–9. discussion 9-10
41. Auprich M, Bjartell A, Chun FK, de la Taille A, Freedland SJ, Haese A, et al. Contemporary role of prostate cancer antigen 3 in the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2011;60(5):1045–54.
42. Truong M, Yang B, Jarrard DF. Toward the detection of prostate cancer in urine: a critical analysis. J Urol. 2013;189(2):422–9.
43. Yang Z, Yu L, Wang Z. PCA3 and TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusions as diagnostic biomarkers for prostate cancer. Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu. 2016;28(1):65–71.
44. Lin DW, Newcomb LF, Brown EC, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, Feng Z, et al. Urinary TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 in an active surveillance cohort: results from a baseline analysis in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2013;19(9):2442–50.
45. Ploussard G, Durand X, Xylinas E, Moutereau S, Radulescu C, Forgue A, et al. Prostate cancer antigen 3 score accurately predicts tumour volume and might help in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2011;59(3):422–9.
46. Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Kettermann A, Landis P, Elliot DJ, Epstein JI, et al. Accuracy of PCA3 measurement in predicting short-term biopsy progression in an active surveillance program. J Urol. 2010;183(2):534–8.
47. Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S, Dhanasekaran SM, Mehra R, Sun XW, et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science (New York, NY). 2005;310(5748):644–8.
48. Laxman B, Tomlins SA, Mehra R, Morris DS, Wang L, Helgeson BE, et al. Noninvasive detection of TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcripts in the urine of men with prostate cancer. Neoplasia (New York, NY). 2006;8(10):885–8.
49. Hessels D, Smit FP, Verhaegh GW, Witjes JA, Cornel EB, Schalken JA. Detection of TMPRSS2-ERG fusion transcripts and prostate cancer antigen 3 in urinary sediments may improve diagnosis of prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(17):5103–8.
50. Demichelis F, Fall K, Perner S, Andren O, Schmidt F, Setlur SR, et al. TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion associated with lethal prostate cancer in a watchful waiting cohort. Oncogene. 2007;26(31):4596–9.
51. Yao Y, Wang H, Li B, Tang Y. Evaluation of the TMPRSS2:ERG fusion for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tumour Biol. 2014;35(3):2157–66.
52. Salami SS, Schmidt F, Laxman B, Regan MM, Rickman DS, Scherr D, et al. Combining urinary detection of TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 with serum PSA to predict diagnosis of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(5):566–71.
53. Loeb S, Bruinsma SM, Nicholson J, Briganti A, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):619–26.
54. Cornu J-N, Cancel-Tassin G, Egrot C, Gaffory C, Haab F, Cussenot O. Urine TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcript integrated with PCA3 score, genotyping, and biological features are correlated to the results of prostatic biopsies in men at risk of prostate cancer. Prostate. 2013;73(3):242–9.
55. Moschini M, Spahn M, Mattei A, Cheville J, Karnes RJ. Incorporation of tissue-based genomic biomarkers into localized prostate cancer clinics. BMC medicine. 2016;14:67.
56. van den Bergh RC, Ahmed HU, Bangma CH, Cooperberg MR, Villers A, Parker CC. Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1023–31.
57. Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi-Galluzzi C, Simko JP, Falzarano SM, Maddala T, 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. 2014;66(3):550–60.
58. Cullen J, Rosner IL, Brand TC, Zhang N, Tsiatis AC, Moncur 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. 2015;68(1):123–31.
59. Ross AE, D’Amico AV, Freedland SJ. Which, when and why? Rational use of tissue-based molecular testing in localized prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19(1):1–6.
60. Cooperberg MR, Simko JP, Cowan JE, Reid JE, Djalilvand A, Bhatnagar S, et al. Validation of a cell-cycle progression gene panel to improve risk stratification in a contemporary prostatectomy cohort. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(11):1428–34.
61. Karnes RJ, Bergstralh EJ, Davicioni E, Ghadessi M, Buerki C, Mitra AP, et al. Validation of a genomic classifier that predicts metastasis following radical prostatectomy in an at risk patient population. J Urol. 2013;190(6):2047–53.
62. Alshalalfa M, Crisan A, Vergara IA, Ghadessi M, Buerki C, Erho N, et al. Clinical and genomic analysis of metastatic prostate cancer progression with a background of postoperative biochemical recurrence. BJU Int. 2015;116(4):556–67.
63. Knudsen BS, Kim HL, Erho N, Shin H, Alshalalfa M, Lam LL, et al. Application of a clinical whole-transcriptome assay for staging and prognosis of prostate cancer diagnosed in needle core biopsy specimens. The Journal of molecular diagnostics: JMD. 2016;18(3):395–406.
64. Lee HJ, Yousefi K, Haddad Z, Abdollah F, Lam LLC, Shin H, et al. Evaluation of a genomic classifier in radical prostatectomy patients with lymph node metastasis. Research and Reports in Urology. 2016;8:77–84.
65. Svetec D, McCabe K, Peretsman S, Klein E, Levin H, Optenberg S, et al. Prostate rebiopsy is a poor surrogate of treatment efficacy in localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 1998;159(5):1606–8.
66. Serefoglu EC, Altinova S, Ugras NS, Akincioglu E, Asil E, Balbay MD. How reliable is 12-core prostate biopsy procedure in the detection of prostate cancer? Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l’Association des urologues du Canada. 2013;7(5–6):E293–8.
67. Choo R, Do V, Sugar L, Klotz L, Bahk E, Hong E, et al. Comparison of histologic grade between initial and follow-up biopsy in untreated, low to intermediate grade, localized prostate cancer
68. Patel MI, DeConcini DT, Lopez-Corona E, Ohori M, Wheeler T, Scardino PT. An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1520–4.
69. van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K, Khoo VS, Thompson A, Huddart RA, et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2008;54(6):1297–305.
70. Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, Shinohara K, Perez N, Greene KL, et al. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193(3):807–11.
71. Loblaw A, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Vesprini D, et al. Comparing prostate specific antigen triggers for intervention in men with stable prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol. 2010;184(5):1942–6.
72. Vickers AJ, Savage C, O’Brien MF, Lilja H. Systematic review of pretreatment prostate-specific antigen velocity and doubling time as predictors for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(3):398–403.