Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Overview and Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy in Urologic Oncology

  • 546 Accesses

Abstracts

Adenocarcinoma of the prostate is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death among American men. Men who are at higher risk of developing the disease include African-American men and those with a family history of prostate cancer. Because of the varying aggressiveness of the disease, multiple treatment modalities exist for both localized and advanced prostate cancer. The large advances in prostate cancer treatment since the early 1990s have resulted in a massive decline in deaths related to the disease. Patient counseling on PSA screening, evaluation and diagnosis, the disease process, and treatment options including active surveillance will help to promote improved outcomes in this patient population.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(1):7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Delongchamps NB, Singh A, Haas GP. Epidemiology of prostate cancer in Africa: another step in the understanding of the disease? Curr Probl Cancer. 2007;31:226.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Miller BA, Kolonel LN. Racial/ethnic patterns of cancer in the United States, 1988–1992. 1996. books.google.com.

  5. Stolzenbach LF, Rosiello G, Deuker M, et al. The impact of race and age on distribution of metastases in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001131.

  6. Bostwick DG, Burke HB, Djakiew D, et al. Human prostate cancer risk factors. Cancer. 2004;101(10 Suppl):2371–490. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20408.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Thompson IM. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2012:e35–9. https://doi.org/10.14694/EdBook_AM.2012.32.98.

  8. Chan JM, Jou RM, Carroll PR. The relative impact and future burden of prostate cancer in the United States. J Urol. 2004;172(5 Pt 2):S13–6; discussion S17. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000142068.66876.53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stanford JL, Ostrander EA. Familial prostate cancer. Epidemiol Rev. 2001;23(1):19–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a000789.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Grönberg H, Damber L. Familial prostate cancer in Sweden: a nationwide register cohort study. Cancer. 1996;77:138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gayther SA, de Foy KAF, Harrington P, Pharoah P. The frequency of germ-line mutations in the breast cancer predisposition genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 in familial prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2000;60:4513.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Crumbaker M, Chan EKF, Gong T, et al. The impact of whole genome data on therapeutic decision-making in metastatic prostate cancer: a retrospective analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(5):1178. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12051178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Giovannucci E, Liu Y, Platz EA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. Risk factors for prostate cancer incidence and progression in the health professionals follow-up study. Int J Cancer. 2007;121(7):1571–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22788.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Wu K, Hu FB, Willett WC, Giovannucci E. Dietary patterns and risk of prostate cancer in U.S. men. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15(1):167–71. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Giovannucci E, Tosteson TD, Speizer FE, Ascherio A, Vessey MP, Colditz GA. A retrospective cohort study of vasectomy and prostate cancer in US men. JAMA. 1993;269(7):878–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stanford JL, Wicklund KG, McKnight B, Daling JR, Brawer MK. Vasectomy and risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 1999;8(10):881–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee F, Littrup PJ, Torp-Pedersen ST, Mettlin C. Prostate cancer: comparison of transrectal US and digital rectal examination for screening. Radiology. 1988;168:389.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schroder FH, Kruger AB, Rietbergen J, et al. Evaluation of the digital rectal examination as a screening test for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(23):1817–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/90.23.1817.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith DS, Catalona WJ. Interexaminer variability of digital rectal examination in detecting prostate cancer. Urology. 1995;45(1):70–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hoogendam A, Buntinx F, de Vet HC. The diagnostic value of digital rectal examination in primary care screening for prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Fam Pract. 1999;16(6):621–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Okotie OT, Roehl KA, Han M, Loeb S, Gashti SN, Catalona WJ. Characteristics of prostate cancer detected by digital rectal examination only. Urology. 2007;70(6):1117–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.07.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Flanigan RC, Catalona WJ, Richie JP, et al. Accuracy of digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography in localizing prostate cancer. J Urol. 1994;152(5 Pt 1):1506–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sensabaugh GF. Isolation and characterization of a semen-specific protein from human seminal plasma: a potential new marker for semen identification. J Forensic Sci. 1978;23:10659J.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang MC, Papsidero LD, Kuriyama M, Valenzuela LA, Murphy GP, Chu TM. Prostate antigen: a new potential marker for prostatic cancer. Prostate. 1981;2(1):89–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.2990020109.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Loeb S, Carter HB, Schaeffer EM, Kettermann A. Distribution of PSA velocity by total PSA levels: data from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Urology. 2011;77:143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wright EJ, Fang J, Metter EJ, et al. Prostate specific antigen predicts the long-term risk of prostate enlargement: results from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. J Urol. 2002;167(6):2484–7; discussion 2487.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gann PH, Hennekens CH, Stampfer MJ. A prospective evaluation of plasma prostate-specific antigen for detection of prostatic cancer. JAMA. 1995;273(4):289–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wu Z-Y, Yang C, Luo J, Deng S-L, Wu B, Chen M. Establishment of reference intervals for serum [-2]proPSA (p2PSA), %p2PSA and prostate health index in healthy men. Onco Targets Ther. 2019;12:6453–60. https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S212340.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Djavan B, Zlotta A, Kratzik C, et al. PSA, PSA density, PSA density of transition zone, free/total PSA ratio, and PSA velocity for early detection of prostate cancer in men with serum PSA 2.5 to 4.0 ng/mL. Urology. 1999;54(3):517–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00153-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Seaman E, Whang M, Olsson CA, Katz A, Cooner WH, Benson MC. PSA density (PSAD). Role in patient evaluation and management. Urol Clin North Am. 1993;20(4):653–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Catalona WJ, Southwick PC, Slawin KM, et al. Comparison of percent free PSA, PSA density, and age-specific PSA cutoffs for prostate cancer detection and staging. Urology. 2000;56(2):255–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00637-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Thompson IM, Chi C, Ankerst DP, et al. Effect of finasteride on the sensitivity of PSA for detecting prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(16):1128–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj307.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee F, Torp-Pedersen ST, McLeary RD. Diagnosis of prostate cancer by transrectal ultrasound. Urol Clin North Am. 1989;16(4):663–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2011;186(5):1830–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.06.057.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2010;183(3):963–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.11.043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hoeks CMA, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology. 2011;261(1):46–66. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11091822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):428–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, Bergh A, Stattin P. Prognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2002;89(6):538–42. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2002.02669.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3+4 versus Gleason score 4+3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000;56(5):823–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Partin AW. Commentary RE: contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium & Updated Nomogram to Predict Pathologic. Urology. 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Zelic R, Garmo H, Zugna D, et al. Predicting prostate cancer death with different pretreatment risk stratification tools: a head-to-head comparison in a nationwide cohort study. Eur Urol. 2019;77:180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Sargos P, Leduc N, Giraud N, Gandaglia G. Predicting biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: can machine learning beat CAPRA score? Results of a multicentric retrospective analysis on 4,700 patients. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):272–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chipollini J, Pollock GR. National trends in the management of low-risk prostate cancer: analyzing the impact of Medicaid expansion in the United States. Int Urol Nephrol. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-020-02463-5.

  46. Albers P, Wiegel T, Schmidberger H, et al. Termination rates and histological reclassification of active surveillance patients with low- and early intermediate-risk prostate cancer: results of the PREFERE trial. World J Urol. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03154-7.

  47. Marks L, Young S, Natarajan S. MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23(1):43–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835ad3ee.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University/Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Joseph K. Izes

  2. Urology, Adirondack Health, Adirondack Medical Center, Saranac Lake, NY, USA

    Thomas Patrick McBride

Authors
  1. Joseph K. Izes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Patrick McBride
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Edouard J. Trabulsi

  2. Department of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Costas D. Lallas

  3. Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Anne E. Lizardi-Calvaresi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Izes, J.K., McBride, T.P. (2021). Overview and Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer. In: Trabulsi, E.J., Lallas, C.D., Lizardi-Calvaresi, A.E. (eds) Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy in Urologic Oncology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52021-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52021-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52020-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52021-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation