Skip to main content

Risk-Based Selection for Active Surveillance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer

Part of the book series: Current Clinical Urology ((CCU))

  • 919 Accesses

Abstract

Active surveillance (AS) is an increasingly important treatment modality aiming to reduce the overtreatment of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) who have a low risk of disease progression. Selecting patients for AS is complex, as is evident from the differences in guidelines with respect to combinations of clinical stage, biopsy outcomes, and PSA values.

The principle of a risk-based patient selection for AS is to indicate which patients have a low risk of PCa progression, such that active treatment with its possible complications and side effects can safely be postponed or avoided. These men need to be distinct from two other groups, namely, those with an underlying aggressive form of PCa where delaying treatment likely would be harmful and those with a very low lifetime risk of progression, where watchful waiting – a palliative strategy – would be optimal.

In this chapter, we demonstrate qualitative considerations in patient selection for AS and which endpoints should be used and provide recent literature comparing monitoring strategies with alternative treatment options. Secondly we review the eligibility criteria of several current guidelines and their empirical basis in underlying study cohorts. We then consider the suitability of existing prediction models for clinically insignificant PCa to assist in the selection for AS. Finally, we describe future developments such as the inclusion of promising new biomarkers, MRI, and specific pathologic findings to further improve risk-based patient selection for AS.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

References

  1. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2014;384:2027–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Tosoian JJ, Carter HB, Lepor A, Loeb S. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13:205–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65:1046–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Bruinsma SM, Bangma CH, Carroll PR, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13:151–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Thomsen FB, Brasso K, Klotz LH, Roder MA, Berg KD, Iversen P. Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer--a systematic review. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:830–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Klotz LH. Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention: walking the line between overtreatment for indolent disease and undertreatment for aggressive disease. Can J Urol. 2005;12(Suppl 1):53–7. discussion 101–2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Thomsen FB, Roder MA, Hvarness H, Iversen P, Brasso K. Active surveillance can reduce overtreatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dan Med J. 2013;60:A4575.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Loeb S, Bruinsma SM, Nicholson J, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur Urol. 2015;67:619–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kattan MW. The hypothetical rabbit. Front Oncol. 2016;6:123.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. van den Bergh RC, Ahmed HU, Bangma CH, Cooperberg MR, Villers A, Parker CC. Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65:1023–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K, et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;64:981–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Welty CJ, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Meaningful end points and outcomes in men on active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24:288–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC. Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer. 1993;71:3582–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Rannikko A, et al. Predictors of unfavourable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance program. Eur Urol. 2012;61:370–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2013;63:597–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lane JA, Donovan JL, Davis M, et al. Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: study design and diagnostic and baseline results of the ProtecT randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1109–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:125–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1415–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:203–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:932–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 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;33:272–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3379–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, et al. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193:807–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Eggener SE, Mueller A, Berglund RK, et al. A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;189:S19–25. discussion S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Thompson JE, Hayen A, Landau A, et al. Medium-term oncological outcomes for extended vs saturation biopsy and transrectal vs transperineal biopsy in active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2015;115:884–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, Stranne J, Hugosson J. Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol. 2013;63:101–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K, et al. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011;185:477–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Shiraishi T, et al. Prospective evaluation of selection criteria for active surveillance in Japanese patients with stage T1cN0M0 prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2008;38:122–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ankerst DP, Xia J, Thompson IM Jr, et al. Precision medicine in active surveillance for prostate cancer: development of the canary-early detection research network active surveillance biopsy risk calculator. Eur Urol. 2015;68:1083–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Coley RY, Zeger SL, Mamawala M, Pienta KJ, Carter HB. Prediction of the pathologic Gleason score to inform a personalized management program for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2016;S0302-2838(16):30472-9.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Venderbos LD, Roobol MJ, Bangma CH, et al. Rule-based versus probabilistic selection for active surveillance using three definitions of insignificant prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2016;34:253–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Wheeler TM, et al. Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J Urol. 2003;170:1792–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, van der Kwast TH, de Koning HJ, Schroder FH. Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol. 2007;177:107–12. discussion 12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wong LM, Neal DE, Finelli A, et al. Evaluation of models predicting insignificant prostate cancer to select men for active surveillance of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015;18:137–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Newcomb LF, Thompson IM Jr, Boyer HD, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, multi-institutional canary PASS cohort. J Urol. 2016;195:313–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Roobol MJ, van Vugt HA, Loeb S, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol. 2012;61:577–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Truong M, Slezak JA, Lin CP, et al. Development and multi-institutional validation of an upgrading risk tool for Gleason 6 prostate cancer. Cancer. 2013;119:3992–4002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Iremashvili V, Manoharan M, Parekh DJ, Punnen S. Can nomograms improve our ability to select candidates for active surveillance for prostate cancer? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19:385–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schroder FH, Bangma CH. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1560–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, et al. A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol. 2016 Dec;70(6):954–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Venderbos LD, van den Bergh RC, Roobol MJ, et al. A longitudinal study on the impact of active surveillance for prostate cancer on anxiety and distress levels. Psycho-Oncology. 2015;24:348–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Simpkin AJ, Tilling K, Martin RM, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors determining change to radical treatment in active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;67:993–1005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Misra-Hebert AD, Kattan MW. Prostate cancer screening: a brief tool to incorporate patient preferences in a clinical encounter. Front Oncol. 2016;6:235.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol. 2006;49:820–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1019–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Alberts AR, Schoots IG, Bokhorst LP, van Leenders GJ, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Risk-based patient selection for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound-guided random biopsy avoids unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging scans. Eur Urol. 2016;69:1129–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kweldam CF, Wildhagen MF, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, van der Kwast TH, van Leenders GJ. Cribriform growth is highly predictive for postoperative metastasis and disease-specific death in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:457–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kweldam CF, Kümmerlin IP, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate cancer outcomes of men with biopsy Gleason score 6 and 7 without cribriform or intraductal carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2016; Oct;66:26–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM, van der Kwast T, et al. Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for Initial Prostate Biopsy by Incorporating the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading and Cribriform growth. European urology. 2017;72:45–51.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Park JJ, Park BK. Role of PI-RADSv2 with multiparametric MRI in determining who needs active surveillance or definitive treatment according to PRIAS. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Jun;45(6):1753–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Cantiello F, Russo GI, Cicione A, et al. PHI and PCA3 improve the prognostic performance of PRIAS and Epstein criteria in predicting insignificant prostate cancer in men eligible for active surveillance. World J Urol. 2016;34:485–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Lin DW, Newcomb LF, Brown MD, et al. Evaluating the four kallikrein panel of the 4Kscore for prediction of high-grade prostate cancer in men in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. Eur Urol. 2016 . pii: S0302–2838(16)30850–8.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Vickers A, Vertosick EA, Sjoberg DD, et al. Properties of the four kallikrein panel outside the diagnostic grey zone: meta-analysis of patients with positive digital rectal exam or prostate-specific antigen 10 ng / mL and above. J Urol. 2017;197:607–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Etzoioni RB. Overdiagnosis in cancer screening: overcoming challenges, avoiding mistakes. Webseminar. 2016. https://www.prevention.nih.gov/programs-events/medicine-mind-the-gap/seminars/defining-measuring-overdiagnosis.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan F. M. Verbeek .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Verbeek, J.F.M., Roobol, M.J., Steyerberg, E.W. (2018). Risk-Based Selection for Active Surveillance. In: Klotz, L. (eds) Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62710-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62710-6_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62709-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62710-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics