Oncologie

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 74–78 | Cite as

Surveillance active des cancers de prostate

Mise au Point Update
  • 66 Downloads

Résumé

L’utilisation très large du PSA a conduit au diagnostic de cancers considérés comme indolents et représentant un sousgroupe de tumeurs de bas risque et de faible volume tumoral. La surveillance active est une attitude qui conduit à surveiller ces patients pour leur proposer un traitement actif lors de l’apparition de critères d’agressivité, mais toujours à un stade curable, la différenciant ainsi de l’abstention-surveillance. La surveillance active repose actuellement sur la réalisation de biopsies itératives et des dosages de PSA. Les données actuelles sont très encourageantes, malgré un recul encore court dans la majorité des séries rapportées. La survie spécifique est supérieure à 97 % à dix ans. Les critères d’inclusion et de passage à un traitement actif doivent se préciser, mais cette attitude ne peut plus être considérée comme exclusivement expérimentale.

Mots clés

Cancer de prostate Surveillance active Abstention 

Active surveillance or prostate cancer

Abstract

The extensive use of PSA has led to the diagnosis of indolent cancers, which represent a subgroup of low-volume, low-risk lesions. Active surveillance is a method to monitor these patients to provide an active treatment in case of development of aggression, but still at a curable stage, thereby differentiating it from watchfull waiting. Surveillance is based on repeated biopsies and PSA. The current data are very encouraging, despite a shorter follow-up when compared with other studies. Specific survival is greater than 97% at 10 years. The criteria for inclusion and transition to an active treatment should be clarified, but this method can no longer be considered experimental only.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Active surveillance Watchfull waiting 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. 1.
    Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K, et al. (2011) Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer J Urol 185: 477–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anast JW, Andriole GL, Bismar TA, et al (2004) Relating biopsy and clinical variables to radical prostatectomy findings: can insignificant and advanced prostate cancer be predicted in a screening population? Urology 64: 544–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. (2011) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer 364: 1708–1717Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boccon-Gibod LM, de Longchamps NB, Toublanc M, et al (2006) Prostate saturation biopsy in the reevaluation of microfocal prostate cancer. J Urol 176: 961–964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boccon-Gibod LM, Dumonceau O, Toublanc M, et al. (2005) Micro-focal prostate cancer: a comparison of biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen features. Eur Urol 48: 895–899PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheng L, Poulos CK, Pan CX, et al (2005) Preoperative prediction of small volume cancer (less than 0.5 ml) in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 174: 898–902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chun FK, Briganti A, Shariat SF, et al. (2006) Significant upgrading affects a third of men diagnosed with prostate cancer: predictive nomogram and internal validation. BJU Int 98: 329–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coogan CL, Latchamsetty KC, Greenfield J, et al (2005) Increasing the number of biopsy cores improves the concordance of biopsy Gleason score to prostatectomy Gleason score. BJU Int 96: 324–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cooperber MR, Caroll PR, Klotz L (2011) Active surveillance for pristate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 29: 3669–3676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al (2008) Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 112: 2664–2670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eggener SE, Mueller A, Berglund RK, et al. (2009) A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 181: 1635–1641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elabbady AA, Khedr MM (2006) Extended 12-core prostate biopsy increases both the detection of prostate cancer and the accuracy of Gleason score. Eur Urol 49: 49–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, et al. (1994) Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 272: 368–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Epstein JE, Sanderson H, Ballentine Carter H, et al (2005) Utility of saturation biopsy to predict insignificant cancer at radical prostatectomy. Urology 66: 356–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fleshner N, Gomella LG, Cookson MS, et al. (2007) Delay in the progression of low-risk prostate cancer: rationale and design of the REDEEM trial. Contemp Clin trials 28: 763–769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoedemaeker RF, van der Kwast RF, Schroeder F (2003) The clinical significance of a small focus of well-differentiated carcinoma at prostate biopsy. BJU Int 92: 92–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khatami A, Aus G, Damber JE, et al. (2007) PSA doubling time predicts the outcome after active surveillance in screening-detected prostate cancer: results from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, Sweden section. Int J Cancer 120: 170–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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: 126–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lawrentschuk N, Haider MA, Daljeet N, et al (2010) Prostatic evasive anterior tumours’: the role of magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int. 105: 1231–1236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lu Yao, Albertsen PC, Moore DF, et al (2009) Outcomes of localized prostate cancer following conservative management. JAMA 302: 1202–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ochiai A, Troncoso P, Chen ME, et al. (2005) The relationship between tumor volume and the number of positive cores in men undergoing multisite extended biopsy: implication for expectant management. J Urol 174: 2164–2168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ploussard G, Durand X, Xylinas E, et al (2011) Prostate cancer antigen 3 score accurately predicts tumour volume and might help in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol 59: 422–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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: 2810–2816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    San Francisco IF, DeWolf WC, Rosen S, et al (2003) Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol 169: 136–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, et al. (2010) Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 58(6): 831–835PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Steineck G, Helgesen F, Adolfsson J, et al (2002) Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. N Engl J Med 347(11): 790–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, et al. (2007) Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol 177: 107–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Terris MK, Mcneal JE, Stamey TA (1992) Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsies. J Urol 148: 829–832PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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. Epub 2011 Apr 4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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: 981–988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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: 1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Welch HG, Black WC (2010) Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(9): 605–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wilt TJ (2011) The VA/NCI/AHRQ CSP#407: prostate cancer intervention versus observation trial (PIVOT). J Urol 185. LBAGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wolters I, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, et al (2011) A critical Analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 185: 121–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag France 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département d’urologieclinique mutualisteSaint-Étienne cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations