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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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)
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
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
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
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
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
Parker C (2003) Active surveillance: an individualized approach to early prostate cancer. BJU Int 92(1):2–3
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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)
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-014-1104-5