Active surveillance in prostate cancer

Czech version

Authors: Milan Král; Vladimír Študent ml.; Michal Grepl; Aleš Vidlář; František Hruška; Vladimír Študent
Authors‘ workplace: Urologická klinika LF UP a FN, Olomouc
Published in: Ces Urol 2014; 18(3): 208-215
Category: Review article

Overview

Radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy are main therapeutic options for patients with localized prostate cancer. Both modalities are associated with significant risk of complications and socio-economic consequences. In low risk prostate cancer patients, active surveillance represents an alternative therapeutic approach. In well selected patients, active surveillance can delay active treatment. The aim of this review is to objectively present data on inclusion criteria and summarize results of comparative studies in active surveillance.

Key words:
prostate cancer, active surveillance, upgrading, upstaging, Gleason score, PSA.

Sources

1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014; 64(1): 9–29.

2. http://www.uroweb.cz/index.php?pg=dg-nadory-prostaty-epidemiologie-ceska-republika-vyvoj-incidence-mortalita

3. Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 2012; 61(6): 1079–1092.

4. Powell IJ, Bock CH, Ruterbusch JJ, et al. Evidence supports a faster growth rate and/or earlier transformation to clinically significant prostate cancer in black than in white American men, and influences racial progression and mortality disparity. J Urol 2010; 183(5): 1792–1796.

5. Wolters T, Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, et al. Comparison of incidentally detected prostate cancer with screen–detected prostate cancer treated by prostatectomy. Prostate 2012; 72(1): 108–115.

6. 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.

7. 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): 368–374.

8. http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/09%20Prostate%20Cancer_LRLV2.pdf

9. van den Bergh RCN, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics in clinical decision-making during active surveillance for early prostate cancer – a review. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 505–516.

10. http://www.baus.org.uk/Resources/BAUS/Documents/PDF%20Documents/BAUS%20in%20general/MDT%20Prostate%20Cancer%20Guidance.pdf

11. https://www.nccn.org/store/login/login.aspx?ReturnURL=http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf

12. 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 ofactive surveillance. J Urol 2013; 190(4): 1218–1222.

13. Suardi N, Capitanio U, Chun FK, et al. Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low–risk prostate cancer: an analysis of pathologic features. Cancer 2008; 113(8): 2068–2072.

14. Suardi N, Gallina A, CapitanioU, et al. Age-adjusted validation of the most stringent criteria for active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer patients. Cancer 2012; 118(4): 973–980.

15. Lu-Yao GL, Albertsen PC, Moore DF, et al. Outcomes of localized prostate cancer following conservative management. JAMA 2009; 302: 1202–1209.

16. Hong SK, Sternberg IA, Keren Paz GE, et al. Definitive Pathology at Radical Prostatectomy Is Commonly Favorable in Men Following Initial Active Surveillance. Eur Urol 2014; 66(2): 214–219.

17. Bul M, Zhu X, Rannikko A, et al. Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance:results from a prospective observational study. Eur Urol 2012; 62(2): 195–200.

18. Iremashvili V, Soloway MS, Rosenberg DL, Manoharan M. Clinical and demographic characteristics associated with prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance. J Urol 2012; 187(5): 1594–1599.

19. Warlick C, Trock BJ, Landis P, Epstein JI, Carter HB. Delayed versus immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 355–357.

20. van den Bergh RC, Steyerberg EW, Khatami A, et al. Is delayed radical prostatectomy in men with low-risk screen-detected prostate cancer associated with a higher risk of unfavorable outcomes? Cancer 2010; 116: 1281–1290.

21. Satkunasivam R, Kulkarni GS, Zlotta AR, et al. Pathological, oncologic and functional outcomes of radical prostatectomy following active surveillance. J Urol 2013; 190(1): 91–95.

22. Holmstrom B, Holmberg E, Egevad L, et al. Outcome of primary versus deferred radical prostatectomy in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden Follow-Up Study. J Urol 2010; 184: 1322–1327.

23. Vickers AJ, Bianco Jr FJ, Boorjian S, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Does a delay between diagnosis and radical prostatectomy increase the risk of disease recurrence? Cancer 2006; 106: 576–580.

24. Čapoun O, Babjuk M, Dvořáček J, Hanuš T, Šafařík L, Pavlík I. Predikce patologické klasifikace karcinomu prostaty. Ces Urol 2008; 12(1): 31–36.

25. Král M, Študent V, Vidlář A, Hrabec M, Marek D. Nomogram predikce up-gradingu Gleasonova skóre v biopsii prostaty. Čes Urol 2007; 11: 159–163.

26. 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(1): 126–131.

27. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 367(3): 203–213.

28. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2014; 370(10): 932–942.

29. Flavell RR, Westphalen AC, Liang C, et al. Abnormal findings on multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging predict subsequent biopsy upgrade in patients with low risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Abdom Imaging 2014 Apr 17 [Epub ahead of print].

30. Kim JY, Kim SH, Kim YH, Lee HJ, Kim MJ, Choi MS. Low-risk prostate cancer: the accuracy of multiparametric mr imaging for detection. Radiology 2014; 271(2): 435–444.

31. Sooriakumaran P, Srivastava A, Christos P, Grover S, Shevchuk M, Tewari A. Predictive models for worsening prognosis in potential candidates for active surveillance of presumed low-risk prostate cancer. Int Urol Nephrol 2012; 44(2): 459–470.

Labels

Paediatric urologist Nephrology Urology

Varicocele

Penile tissue preserving methods in the treatment of lower T categories of penile cancer

Age specific PSA and PSA velocity – comparison on the basis of prostate biopsies

Comparrison of multiparametric magnetic resonance immaging of the prostate with Tesla magnetic field, with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy

Extracorporeal shock-wave litothripsy – 4 year experience with electromagnetic litotripter Urontech URO-EMX

Inflammatory pseudotumor of the urinary bladder presenting as a symptom of active vasculitis in a patient with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Wegener’s) – an unusual manifestation of ANCA-associated vasculitis

Article was published in

Czech Urology

2014 Issue 3