Advertisement

Der Urologe

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 329–340 | Cite as

Active Surveillance beim Prostatakarzinom

Ein Update
  • M. ChaloupkaEmail author
  • T. Westhofen
  • A. Kretschmer
  • T. Grimm
  • C. Stief
  • M. Apfelbeck
CME
  • 40 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Das Prostatakarzinom ist eine heterogene Erkrankung. Im Falle eines Niedrigrisikokarzinoms stellt die aktive Überwachung eine attraktive Therapiealternative dar. Einschneidende Komplikationen einer definitiven Therapie können somit aufgeschoben bzw. ganz vermieden werden. Trotz strenger Einschlusskriterien für die aktive Überwachung ist die Diagnose eines Niedrigrisikokarzinoms aber nicht immer korrekt gestellt. Es verbleibt ein Risiko, dass der optimale Zeitpunkt einer definitiven Therapie verpasst wird. Eine multimodale Diagnostik sowie eine engmaschige Nachsorge sind deswegen essenziell.

Schlüsselwörter

Prostatakrebs Niedrig-Risiko Prostatakarzinom Magnetresonanztomographie Fusionsbiopsie Nachsorge 

Active surveillance of prostate cancer

An update

Abstract

Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease. In cases of low-risk prostate cancer, active surveillance represents an attractive alternative treatment. Significant complications of a definitive treatment can therefore be delayed or completely avoided. Despite strict inclusion criteria for active surveillance, the diagnosis of low-risk prostate cancer can be inaccurate and there is therefore a risk of missing the optimal point in time for definitive treatment. Multimodal diagnostics and continuous aftercare are therefore crucial.

Keywords

Prostatic neoplasms Low risk Prostate cancer Magnetic resonance imaging Fusion biopsy Aftercare 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

M. Chaloupka, T. Westhofen, A. Kretschmer, T. Grimm, C. Stief und M. Apfelbeck geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Zentrum für Krebsregisterdaten (2017) Robert-Koch-Institut: Krebs in Deutschland, ProstataGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Arfi N, Gross T, Moris L, Briers E, Cumberbatch M, De Santis M, Tilki D, Fanti S et al (2018) Prognostic value of biochemical recurrence following treatment with curative intent for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tosoian JJ, Sundi D, Trock BJ, Landis P, Epstein JI, Schaeffer EM, Carter HB, Mamawala M (2016) Pathologic Outcomes in Favorable-risk Prostate Cancer: Comparative Analysis of Men Electing Active Surveillance and Immediate Surgery. Eur Urol 69:576–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Auffenberg GB, Linsell S, Dhir A, Myers SN, Rosenberg B, Miller DC, Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement C (2016) Comparison of pathological outcomes for men with low risk prostate cancer from diverse practice settings: similar results from immediate prostatectomy or initial surveillance with delayed prostatectomy. J Urol 196:1415–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carter HB, Walsh PC, Landis P, Epstein JI (2002) Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results. J Urol 167:1231–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR (2015) Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990–2013. JAMA 314:80–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loppenberg B, Friedlander DF, Krasnova A, Tam A, Leow JJ, Nguyen PL, Barry H, Lipsitz SR, Menon M, Abdollah F et al (2018) Variation in the use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Cancer 124:55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huland H, Graefen M (2015) Changing trends in surgical management of prostate cancer: the end of overtreatment? Eur Urol 68:175–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beck V, Schlenker B, Herlemann A, Apfelbeck M, Buchner A, Gratzke C, Stief CG, Tritschler S (2018) The increase of stage, grading, and metastases in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy during the last decade. World J Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2487-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fossati N, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau S et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB (1994) Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 271:368–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kryvenko ON, Carter HB, Trock BJ, Epstein JI (2014) Biopsy criteria for determining appropriateness for active surveillance in the modern era. Urology 83:869–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, Kakehi Y, Pickles T, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, group Ps (2016) 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 70:954–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 29:2185–2190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Zhu X, Rannikko A, Vasarainen H, Bangma CH, Schroder FH, Roobol MJ (2012) Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 110:1672–1677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 28:126–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Porten SP, Whitson JM, Cowan JE, Cooperberg MR, Shinohara K, Perez N, Greene KL, Meng MV, Carroll PR (2011) Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. J Clin Oncol 29:2795–2800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dinh KT, Mahal BA, Ziehr DR, Muralidhar V, Chen YW, Viswanathan VB, Nezolosky MD, Beard CJ, Choueiri TK, Martin NE et al (2015) Incidence and predictors of upgrading and up staging among 10,000 contemporary patients with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 194:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Song SH, Pak S, Park S, Song C, Jeong IG, Choi HJ, Kim JK, Cho KS, Kim CS, Ahn H (2014) Predictors of unfavorable disease after radical prostatectomy in patients at low risk by D’Amico criteria: role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 192:402–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weiner AB, Patel SG, Eggener SE (2015) Pathologic outcomes for low-risk prostate cancer after delayed radical prostatectomy in the United States. Urol Oncol 33:164 e11–164 e17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mullins JK, Han M, Pierorazio PM, Partin AW, Carter HB (2012) Radical prostatectomy outcome in men 65 years old or older with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 187:1620–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Imnadze M, Sjoberg DD, Vickers AJ (2016) Adverse pathologic features at radical prostatectomy: effect of preoperative risk on oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol 69:143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beauval JB, Ploussard G, Soulie M, Pfister C, Van Agt S, Vincendeau S, Larue S, Rigaud J, Gaschignard N, Roupret M et al (2012) Pathologic findings in radical prostatectomy specimens from patients eligible for active surveillance with highly selective criteria: a multicenter study. Urology 80:656–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carlsson S, Jaderling F, Wallerstedt A, Nyberg T, Stranne J, Thorsteinsdottir T, Carlsson SV, Bjartell A, Hugosson J, Haglind E et al (2016) Oncological and functional outcomes 1 year after radical prostatectomy for very-low-risk prostate cancer: results from the prospective LAPPRO trial. BJU Int 118:205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF) (2018) Interdiszplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des ProstatakarzinomsGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hamoen EHJ, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM (2015) Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67:1112–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schlenker B, Apfelbeck M, Buchner A, Stief C, Clevert DA (2018) MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy of the prostate: quality of image fusion in a clinical setting. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc.  https://doi.org/10.3233/CH-189308 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, Thoeny HC, Tempany CM, Shtern F, Padhani AR, Margolis D, Macura KJ, Haider MA et al (2016) Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 69:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, Zamecnik P, Bakker D, Setiasti AY, Veltman J et al (2018) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective Multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, Briganti A, Budaus L, Hellawell G, Hindley RG et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Sanda MG, Wei JT, Klee GG, Bangma CH, Slawin KM, Marks LS, Loeb S, Broyles DL et al (2011) A multicenter study of [−2]pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. J Urol 185:1650–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jansen FH, van Schaik RH, Kurstjens J, Horninger W, Klocker H, Bektic J, Wildhagen MF, Roobol MJ, Bangma CH, Bartsch G (2010) Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform p2PSA in combination with total PSA and free PSA improves diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer detection. Eur Urol 57:921–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lazzeri M, Haese A, de la Taille A, Palou Redorta J, McNicholas T, Lughezzani G, Scattoni V, Bini V, Freschi M, Sussman A et al (2013) Serum isoform [−2]proPSA derivatives significantly improve prediction of prostate cancer at initial biopsy in a total PSA range of 2–10 ng/ml: a multicentric European study. Eur Urol 63:986–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stephan C, Vincendeau S, Houlgatte A, Cammann H, Jung K, Semjonow A (2013) Multicenter evaluation of [−2]proprostate-specific antigen and the prostate health index for detecting prostate cancer. Clin Chem 59:306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van Neste L, Hendriks RJ, Dijkstra S, Trooskens G, Cornel EB, Jannink SA, de Jong H, Hessels D, Smit FP, Melchers WJ et al (2016) Detection of high-grade prostate cancer using a urinary molecular biomarker-based risk score. Eur Urol 70:740–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi-Galluzzi C, Simko JP, Falzarano SM, Maddala T, Chan JM, Li J, Cowan JE, Tsiatis AC et al (2014) A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol 66:550–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cullen J, Rosner IL, Brand TC, Zhang N, Tsiatis AC, Moncur J, Ali A, Chen Y, Knezevic D, Maddala T et al (2015) A biopsy-based 17-gene genomic prostate score predicts recurrence after radical prostatectomy and adverse surgical pathology in a racially diverse population of men with clinically low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 68:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Makarov DV, Isharwal S, Sokoll LJ, Landis P, Marlow C, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Carter HB, Veltri RW (2009) Pro-prostate-specific antigen measurements in serum and tissue are associated with treatment necessity among men enrolled in expectant management for prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 15:7316–7321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hirama H, Sugimoto M, Ito K, Shiraishi T, Kakehi Y (2014) The impact of baseline [−2]proPSA-related indices on the prediction of pathological reclassification at 1 year during active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: the Japanese multicenter study cohort. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 140:257–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Feng Z, Isharwal S, Landis P, Elliot DJ, Veltri R, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Carter HB et al (2012) Association of [−2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 188:1131–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Carter HB, Helfand B, Mamawala M, Wu Y, Landis P, Yu H, Wiley K, Na R, Shi Z, Petkewicz J et al (2018) Germline mutations in ATM and BRCA1/2 are associated with grade reclassification in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.09.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    de Camargo Cancela M, Comber H, Sharp L (2013) Age remains the major predictor of curative treatment non-receipt for localised prostate cancer: a population-based study. Br J Cancer 109:272–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lee JK, Sjoberg DD, Miller MI, Vickers AJ, Mulhall JP, Ehdaie B (2018) Improved recovery of erectile function in younger men after radical prostatectomy: does it justify immediate surgery in low-risk patients? Eur Urol 73:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nassiri N, Margolis DJ, Natarajan S, Sharma DS, Huang J, Dorey FJ, Marks LS (2017) Targeted biopsy to detect gleason score upgrading during active surveillance for men with low versus intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 197:632–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schulman AA, Sze C, Tsivian E, Gupta RT, Moul JW, Polascik TJ (2017) The contemporary role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 18:52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S, Yamamoto T, Mamedov A, Loblaw A (2015) Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:272–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    O’Callaghan C, Dryden T, Hyatt A, Brooker J, Burney S, Wootten AC, White A, Frydenberg M, Murphy D, Williams S et al (2014) ‘What is this active surveillance thing?’ Men’s and partners’ reactions to treatment decision making for prostate cancer when active surveillance is the recommended treatment option. Psychooncology 23:1391–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, Davis M, Peters TJ, Turner EL, Martin RM et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1415–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, Landis P, Wolf S, Trock BJ, Carter HB (2015) Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:3379–3385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Briganti A, Fossati N, Catto JWF, Cornford P, Montorsi F, Mottet N, Wirth M, Van Poppel H (2018) Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: The European Association of Urology Position in 2018. Eur Urol 74:357–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Chaloupka
    • 1
    Email author
  • T. Westhofen
    • 1
  • A. Kretschmer
    • 1
  • T. Grimm
    • 1
  • C. Stief
    • 1
  • M. Apfelbeck
    • 1
  1. 1.Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Campus Großhadern, Klinikum der Universität MünchenLudwig-Maximilians-UniversitätMünchenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations