Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: diversity of practice across Europe

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Active surveillance (AS) is a recognised treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

Aims

To review AS criteria in terms of patient selection, follow-up and indications for intervention.

Methods

A total of 2,959 potential participants were identified and invited via email to complete an online survey. Only urologists practising in an EU country were eligible to participate. Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS version 18.0. The χ 2 test was used to compare responses between those who do and do not follow an AS protocol.

Results

Response rate was 8 % (n = 226). Ninety-seven per cent urologists offer AS; 25 % (n = 53/215) within a clinical trial and a further 28 % (n = 60/215) using an official AS protocol. Gleason score ≤ 3 + 3 = 6 (87 %, n = 173/200) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 10 ng/ml (86 %, n = 170/198) are the commonest selection criteria. There was a statistically significant association between having an AS protocol and using PSA as an eligibility criterion (p = 0.03). For urologists not following a protocol, 11 % do not consider PSA as an eligibility criterion and 81 % consider PSA ≤ 10 ng/ml to decide on AS, compared to 2 and 90 %, respectively, who adhere to a protocol. Twenty-four per cent of urologists without a protocol do not re-biopsy in comparison to 11 % with a protocol (p = 0.026). Gleason score progression trigger the most intervention (n = 168/192, 87 %).

Conclusions

Urologists not adhering to an AS protocol or participating in a clinical trial appear to apply less rigorous criteria for both eligibility and monitoring in AS.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yin M, Bastacky S, Chandran U (2008) Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer in the general population: a study of healthy organ donors. J Urol 179(3):892–895. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.10.057 (Discussion 895)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360(13):1320–1328. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0810084

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM et al (2012) Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 367(3):203–213. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1113162

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1999) Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 17(1):168–172

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cooperberg MR, Pasta DJ, Elkin EP et al (2005) The University of California, San Francisco cancer of the prostate risk assessment score: a straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 173(6):1938–1942. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000158155.33890.e7

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280(11):969–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Parker C (2003) Active surveillance: an individualized approach to early prostate cancer. BJU Int 92(1):2–3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Weissbach L, Altwein J (2009) Active surveillance or active treatment in localized prostate cancer? Dtsch Arztebl Int 106(22):371–376. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2009.0371

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G et al (2007) Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 177(6):2106–2131. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59(1):61–71. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A et al (2010) Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(1):126–131. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hardie C, Parker C, Norman A et al (2005) Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 95(7):956–960. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05446.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P et al (2011) Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 29(16):2185–2190. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ et al (2009) Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol 55(1):1–8. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Shiraishi T et al (2008) Prospective evaluation of selection criteria for active surveillance in Japanese patients with stage T1cN0M0 prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 38(2):122–128. doi:10.1093/jjco/hym161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Martin RM, Gunnell D, Hamdy F et al (2006) Continuing controversy over monitoring men with localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of programs in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 176(2):439–449. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.03.030

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C (2007) Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol 178(6):2359–2364. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.039 (Discussion 2364–2355)

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eggener SE, Mueller A, Berglund RK (2009) A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 181(4):1635–1641. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.11.109 (Discussion 1641)

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dall’Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C et al (2012) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 62(6):976–983. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC (2008) Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 180(5):1964–1967. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.07.051 (Discussion 1967–1968)

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lawrentschuk N, Haider MA, Daljeet N et al (2010) ‘Prostatic evasive anterior tumours’: the role of magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int 105(9):1231–1236. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08938.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van As NJ, de Souza NM, Riches SF et al (2009) A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol 56(6):981–987. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.11.051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P et al (2010) Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol 28(17):2810–2816. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.25.7311

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Whitson JM, Carroll PR (2010) Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: defining the triggers for intervention. J Clin Oncol 28(17):2807–2809. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.28.5817

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Latini DM, Hart SL, Knight SJ (2007) The relationship between anxiety and time to treatment for patients with prostate cancer on surveillance. J Urol 178(3 Pt 1):826–831. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.039 (Discussion 831–822)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gorin MA, Eldefrawy A, Ekwenna O et al (2012) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: knowledge, acceptance and practice among urologists. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 15(2):177–181. doi:10.1038/pcan.2011.57

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Azmi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Azmi, A., Dillon, R.A., Borghesi, S. et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: diversity of practice across Europe. Ir J Med Sci 184, 305–311 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-014-1104-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-014-1104-5

Keywords

Navigation