Investig Clin Urol.  2016 Jan;57(1):14-20. 10.4111/icu.2016.57.1.14.

Current status of active surveillance in prostate cancer

• Chung MS
• Lee SH

• KMID: 2363120
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2016.57.1.14

Abstract

Active surveillance (AS) is a management strategy involving close monitoring the course of disease with the expectation to intervene if the cancer progress, in a super-selected group of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Determining AS candidates should be based on careful individualized weighing of numerous factors: life expectancy, general health condition, disease characteristics, potential side effects of treatment, and patient preference. Several protocols have been developed to determine insignificant PCa for choosing ideal AS candidates. Results regarding disease reclassification during AS have been also reported. In an effort to enhance accuracy during selection of AS candidate, there were several reports on using magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of insignificant PCa. Currently, there is an urgent need for further clinical studies regarding the criteria for recommending AS, the criteria for reclassification on AS, and the schedule for AS. Considering the racial differences in behavior of PCa between Western and Asian populations, more stringent AS protocols for Asian patients should be established from additional, well-designed, large clinical studies.

Keyword

Prostatectomy; Prostatic neoplasms; Watchful waiting

MeSH Terms

Asian Continental Ancestry Group/statistics & numerical data
Clinical Protocols
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Patient Selection
Population Surveillance/methods
Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood
Prostatic Neoplasms/*diagnosis/ethnology/*therapy
*Watchful Waiting
Prostate-Specific Antigen

Reference

1. Sakr WA, Grignon DJ, Crissman JD, Heilbrun LK, Cassin BJ, Pontes JJ, et al. High grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and prostatic adenocarcinoma between the ages of 20-69: an autopsy study of 249 cases. In Vivo. 1994; 8:439–443.

2. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Parnes HL, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350:2239–2246.

3. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366:981–990.

4. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360:1320–1328.

5. Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom? J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23:8165–8169.

6. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360:1310–1319.

7. Andriole GL, Bostwick DG, Brawley OW, Gomella LG, Marberger M, Montorsi F, et al. Effect of dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362:1192–1202.

8. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, et al. 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; 104:125–132.

9. Sandblom G, Varenhorst E, Rosell J, Lofman O, Carlsson P. Randomised prostate cancer screening trial: 20 year follow-up. BMJ. 2011; 342:d1539.

10. Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, Bergdahl S, Khatami A, Lodding P, et al. Mortality results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11:725–732.

11. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Wever E, Gulati R, et al. Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101:374–383.

12. Draisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ, van der Cruijsen IW, Damhuis RA, Schroder FH, et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95:868–878.

13. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intentupdate 2013. Eur Urol. 2014; 65:124–137.

14. Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a review. Curr Urol Rep. 2010; 11:165–171.

15. Krakowsky Y, Loblaw A, Klotz L. Prostate cancer death of men treated with initial active surveillance: clinical and biochemical characteristics. J Urol. 2010; 184:131–135.

16. Al Otaibi M, Ross P, Fahmy N, Jeyaganth S, Trottier H, Sircar K, et al. Role of repeated biopsy of the prostate in predicting disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Cancer. 2008; 113:286–292.

17. Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Kettermann A, 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.

18. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA. 1994; 271:368–374.

19. Epstein JI, Chan DW, Sokoll LJ, Walsh PC, Cox JL, Rittenhouse H, et al. Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. J Urol. 1998; 160(6 Pt 2):2407–2411.

20. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer. 1993; 71:3 Suppl. 933–938.

21. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, van den Bergh RC, Hoedemaeker RF, van Leenders GJ, 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; 185:121–125.

22. Kane CJ, Im R, Amling CL, Presti JC Jr, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, et al. Outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men who are candidates for active surveillance: results from the SEARCH database. Urology. 2010; 76:695–700.

23. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, Carroll PR, Wirth M, Grimm MO, et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2011; 60:291–303.

24. Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, Ruthazer R, Silverman ML, Sorcini A, et al. Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2008; 54:371–381.

25. Jeldres C, Suardi N, Walz J, Hutterer GC, Ahyai S, Lattouf JB, et al. Validation of the contemporary epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men. Eur Urol. 2008; 54:1306–1313.

26. Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Partin AW. Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors: a contemporary analysis. Cancer. 2004; 101:2001–2005.

27. Bastian PJ, Carter BH, Bjartell A, Seitz M, Stanislaus P, Montorsi F, et al. Insignificant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from definition to clinical implications. Eur Urol. 2009; 55:1321–1330.

28. 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; 29:2185–2190.

29. Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K, Maschino A, Cronin A, Vickers 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. 2011; 185:477–482.

30. Whitson JM, Porten SP, Hilton JF, Cowan JE, Perez N, Cooperberg MR, et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011; 185:1656–1660.

31. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Aus G, Hugosson J, Rannikko AS, et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol. 2009; 55:1–8.

32. 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; 58:831–835.

33. Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Shiraishi T, Ogawa O, Suzukamo Y, Fukuhara S, et al. Prospective evaluation of selection criteria for active surveillance in Japanese patients with stage T1cN0M0 prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2008; 38:122–128.

34. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28:126–131.

35. 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; 112:2664–2670.

36. Ha JY, Kim BH, Park CH, Kim CI. Early experience with active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer treated. Korean J Urol. 2014; 55:167–171.

37. Byun SS, Lee S, Lee SE, Lee E, Seo SI, Lee HM, et al. Recent changes in the clinicopathologic features of Korean men with prostate cancer: a comparison with Western populations. Yonsei Med J. 2012; 53:543–549.

38. Kim TH, Jeon HG, Choo SH, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, et al. Pathological upgrading and upstaging of patients eligible for active surveillance according to currently used protocols. Int J Urol. 2014; 21:377–381.

39. Choo SH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, Choi HY, et al. Predictive factors of unfavorable prostate cancer in patients who underwent prostatectomy but eligible for active surveillance. Prostate Int. 2014; 2:70–75.

40. Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M, Jorda M, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol. 2012; 62:462–468.

41. Sugimoto M, Shiraishi T, Tsunemori H, Demura T, Saito Y, Kamoto T, et al. Pathological findings at radical prostatectomy in Japanese prospective active surveillance cohort. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010; 40:973–979.

42. Mufarrij P, Sankin A, Godoy G, Lepor H. Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2010; 76:689–692.

43. Goto Y, Nozumi K, Miyazaki K, Matsumoto A, Inoue A, Kito H, et al. Active surveillance criteria for prostate cancer: can they be applied to Japanese patients? Int J Urol. 2012; 19:163–166.

44. Lee DH, Jung HB, Lee SH, Rha KH, Choi YD, Hong SJ, et al. Comparison of pathological outcomes of active surveillance candidates who underwent radical prostatectomy using contemporary protocols at a high-volume Korean center. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2012; 42:1079–1085.

45. Lim SK, Kim KH, Shin TY, Chung BH, Hong SJ, Choi YD, et al. Yonsei criteria: a new protocol for active surveillance in the era of robotic and local ablative surgeries. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2013; 11:501–507.

46. Jin BS, Kang SH, Kim DY, Oh HG, Kim CI, Moon GH, et al. Pathological upgrading in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance: does prostate-specific antigen density matter? Korean J Urol. 2015; 56:624–629.

47. Kim TH, Jeong JY, Lee SW, Kim CK, Park BK, Sung HH, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer in potential candidates for active surveillance. Eur Radiol. 2015; 25:1786–1792.

48. Jeong CW, Park YH, Hwang SI, Lee S, Jeong SJ, Hong SK, et al. The role of 3-tesla diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Prostate Int. 2014; 2:169–175.

49. Bonekamp D, Bonekamp S, Mullins JK, Epstein JI, Carter HB, Macura KJ. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging characterization of prostate lesions in the active surveillance population: incremental value of magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of disease reclassification. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2013; 37:948–956.

50. Mullins JK, Bonekamp D, Landis P, Begum H, Partin AW, Epstein JI, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int. 2013; 111:1037–1045.

51. Park BH, Jeon HG, Choo SH, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, et al. Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int. 2014; 113:864–870.

52. Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH, Rha KH, Choi YD, Hong SJ, et al. Tumor lesion diameter on diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging could help predict insignificant prostate cancer in patients eligible for active surveillance: preliminary analysis. J Urol. 2013; 190:1213–1217.

53. Feliciano J, Teper E, Ferrandino M, Macchia RJ, Blank W, Grunberger I, et al. The incidence of fluoroquinolone resistant infections after prostate biopsy: are fluoroquinolones still effective prophylaxis? J Urol. 2008; 179:952–955.

54. Fujita K, Landis P, McNeil BK, Pavlovich CP. Serial prostate biopsies are associated with an increased risk of erectile dysfunction in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol. 2009; 182:2664–2669.