Skip to main content
Log in

Consensus statement with recommendations on active surveillance inclusion criteria and definition of progression in men with localized prostate cancer: the critical role of the pathologist

  • Meeting Report
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Active surveillance (AS) is an important management option for men with low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer. The clinical parameters for patient selection and definition of progression for AS protocols are evolving as data from several large cohorts matures. Vital to this process is the critical role pathologic parameters play in identifying appropriate candidates for AS. These findings need to be reproducible and consistently reported by surgical pathologists. This report highlights the importance of accurate pathology reporting as a critical component of these protocols.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Litwin MS, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, Henning JM, Carroll PR, Investigators CPSURE (2004) The contemporary management of prostate cancer in the United States: lessons from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor (CapSURE), a national disease registry. J Urol 171:1393–1401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J (2005) 20-Year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 293:2095–2101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR (2010) Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:1117–1123

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Bianco FJ Jr, Yossepowitch O, Vickers AJ, Klein EA, Wood DP, Scardino PT (2009) Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 27:4300–4305

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Etzioni R, Penson DF, Legler JM, di Tommaso D, Boer R, Gann PH, Feuer EJ (2002) Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:981–990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Johansson JE, Andren O, Andersson SO, Dickman PW, Holmberg L, Magnuson A, Adami HO (2004) Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA 291:2713–2719

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McGregor M, Hanley JA, Boivin JF, McLean RG (1998) Screening for prostate cancer: estimating the magnitude of overdetection. CMAJ 159:1368–1372

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lu-Yao GL, Albertsen PC, Moore DF, Shih W, Lin Y, DiPaola RS, Barry MJ, Zietman A, O’Leary M, Walker-Corkery E, Yao SL (2009) Outcomes of localized prostate cancer following conservative management. JAMA 302:1202–1209

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, Mottet N, Schmid HP, van der Kwast T, Wiegel T, Zattoni F (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59:61–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS, D’Amico AV, Dmochowski RR, Eton DT, Forman JD, Goldenberg SL, Hernandez J, Higano CS, Kraus SR, Moul JW, Tangen CM, AUA Prostate Cancer Clinical Guideline Update Panel (2007) Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 177:2106–2131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Network NCC (2010) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. Available at: www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf.

  12. Dall’Era MA, Cooperberg MR, Chan JM, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A, Bjartell A, van der Schoot DK, Cornel EB, Conti GN, Boevé ER, Staerman F, Vis-Maters JJ, Vergunst H, Jaspars JJ, Strölin P, van Muilekom E, Schröder FH, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ (2008) Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the current literature. Cancer 112:1650–1659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Xia J, Trock BJ, Cooperberg MR, Gulati R, Zeliadt SB, Gore JL, Lin DW, Carroll PR, Carter HB, Etzioni R (2012) Prostate cancer mortality following active surveillance versus immediate radical prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res 18:5471–5478

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ganz PABJ, Burke W, Col NF, Corso PS, Dodson E, Hammond ME, Kogan BA, Lynch CF, Newcomer L, Seifter EJ, Tooze JA, Viswanath K, Wessells H (2011) National institutes of health state-of-the-science conference statement: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. NIH Consens State Sci Statement 28:1–27

    Google Scholar 

  15. Amin MB, Lin DW, Gore JL, Srigley JR, Samaratunga H, Egevad L, Rubin M, Nacey J, et al. (2014) The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management options in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the college of american pathologist, international society of urologic pathologist, association of directors of anatomic and surgical pathology, the New Zealand society of pathologists and the prostate cancer foundation. Arch Pathol Lab Med

  16. Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A, Bjartell A, van der Schoot DK, Cornel EB, Conti GN, Boevé ER, Staerman F, Vis-Maters JJ, Vergunst H, Jaspars JJ, Strölin P, van Muilekom E, Schröder FH, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ (2013) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 63:597–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, Feng Z, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Carter HB (2011) Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 29:2185–2190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Montironi R, Lopez-Beltran A, Mazzucchelli R, Scarpelli M, Galosi AB, Cheng L (2014) Contemporary update on pathology-related issues on routine workup of prostate biopsy: sectioning, tumor extent measurement, specimen orientation, and immunohistochemistry. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 36:61–70

    Google Scholar 

  20. Montironi R, Scarpelli M, Mazzucchelli R, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A, Montorsi F (2012) Extent of cancer of less than 50 % in any prostate needle biopsy core: how many millimeters are there? Eur Urol 61:751–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brimo F, Vollmer RT, Corcos J, Kotar K, Begin RL, Humphrey PA, Bismar TA (2008) Prognostic value of various morphometric measurements of tumour extent in prostate needle core tissue. Histopathology 53:177–183

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Karram S, Trock BJ, Netto GJ, Epstein JI (2011) Should intervening benign tissue be included in the measurement of discontinuous foci of cancer on prostate needle biopsy? Correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Am J Surg Pathol 35:1351–1355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schultz L, Maluf CE, da Silva RC, Falashi Rde H, da Costa MV, Schultz MI (2013) Discontinuous foci of cancer in a single core of prostatic biopsy: when it occurs and performance of quantification methods in a private-practice setting. Am J Surg Pathol 37:1831–1836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Epstein JI (2010) An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 183:433–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF (2009) Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:1446–1452

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodolfo Montironi.

Additional information

This study is supported by The College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urologic Pathology, Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, The New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and The Prostate Cancer Foundation.

Appendix

Appendix

  • Team 1: Clinical perspective on active surveillance: Daniel Lin, John Gore (team leads), John Nacey, Ballentine Carter, Laurence Klotz, Anthony Zietman, and Stuart Holden

  • Team 2: Tumor quantification and other pathologic parameters: John Srigley, Hema Samaratunga (team leads), Rodolfo Montironi, Peter Humphrey, and Andrew Evans

  • Team 3: Gleason grading of prostate cancer: Lars Egevad (team lead), Jonathan Epstein, Brett Delahunt, Mahul Amin, Jesse McKenney, Dan Berney, and Thomas Wheeler

  • Team 4: Ancillary molecular diagnostic tests: Mark Rubin (team lead), Arul Chinnaiyan, Lawrence True, and Beatrice Knudsen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Montironi, R., Hammond, E.H., Lin, D.W. et al. Consensus statement with recommendations on active surveillance inclusion criteria and definition of progression in men with localized prostate cancer: the critical role of the pathologist. Virchows Arch 465, 623–628 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-014-1668-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-014-1668-5

Keywords

Navigation