Active surveillance versus radical treatment for favorable-risk localized prostate cancer
- 111 Downloads
Widespread prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in North America has resulted in a profound stage migration and a marked increase in incidence. One in six men is now diagnosed, many with small-volume, low-grade cancer. This incidence is dramatically higher than the 3% lifetime risk of prostate cancer death that characterized the prescreening era. This article summarizes the case for active surveillance for “favorable-risk” prostate cancer with selective delayed intervention for rapid biochemical progression, assessed by increasing PSA levels, or grade progression. The results of a large phase II trial using this approach are reviewed. To date, this study has shown that virtually all men with favorable-risk prostate cancer managed in this fashion will die of unrelated causes. Based on the Swedish randomized trial of radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting, the Connecticut observation series, and the Toronto active surveillance experience, a number needed to treat analysis of the benefit of radical treatment of all newly diagnosed favorable-risk prostate cancer patients, compared with a strategy of active surveillance with selective delayed intervention, is presented. This suggests that approximately 73 patients will require radical treatment for each prostate cancer death averted. This translates into a 3- to 4-week survival benefit, unadjusted for quality of life. This figure is confirmed based on an analysis of the 2004 D'Amico et al. PSA velocity data in favorable-risk disease. The approach of active surveillance with selective delayed intervention based on PSA doubling time and repeat biopsy represents a practical compromise between radical therapy for all patients (which results in overtreatment for patients with indolent disease) and watchful waiting with palliative therapy only (which results in undertreatment for those with aggressive disease).
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References and Recommended Reading
- 1.Sakr WA, Haas GP, Cassin BF, et al.: The frequency of carcinoma and intraepithelial neoplasia of the prostate in young male patients. J Urol 1993, 150:379–385. This study demonstrated the high prevalence of histologic prostate cancer in men in their 20s and 30s dying of unrelated causes, mostly trauma, and suggests that the lead time from inception of disease to clinical diagnosis is approximately 30 years.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Thompson IM, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, et al.: The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003, 349:215–224 This landmark trial was the first to subject a large cohort of men with a normal PSA to prostate biopsy; it showed a 25% positive biopsy rate in the placebo arm, confirming the serious risks of overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant disease. It also showed a 25% reduction in the risk of diagnosing prostate cancer in men treated with finasteride for 7 years.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, et al.: Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 1999, 281:1591–1597. This important study of 2000 radical prostatectomies at Johns Hopkins University reported that the median time from surgery to prostate cancer death was 16 years in patients failing radical prostatectomy.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J: 20-Year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005, 293:2095–2101. This population-based study of watchful waiting in Connecticut showed that men with Gleason 6 or less prostate cancer had a risk of prostate cancer mortality at 20 years of between 15% and 23% without treatment. For most of these men, the risk of a non-prostate cancer death was much higher.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, et al.: Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol 2001, 166:104–109; discussion 109-110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.D'Amico AV, Chen MH, Roehl KA, Catalona WJ: Preoperative PSA velocity and the risk of death from prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med 2004, 351:125–135. This study demonstrated that a PSA increase of more than 2 in the year before surgery identified 100% of men destined to die of prostate cancer (despite surgery) over the next 10 years.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C, et al.: Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. J Urol 2002, 167:1664–1669. This was the first report of a large cohort managed with the strategy of active surveillance with selective delayed intervention based on PSA kinetics and/or grade progression.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al.: Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005, 352:1977–1984. This critical study reports the updated results of a unique randomized trial of surgery versus watchful waiting, showing a 44% reduction in prostate cancer mortality at 10 years with radical prostatectomy.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Steineck G, Helgesen F, Adolfsson J, et al.: Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. N Engl J Med 2002, 347:790–796. This is a companion study to the Scandinavian randomized study of watchful waiting versus prostatectomy, showing no difference in any domain related to psychological functioning, depression, or general sense of well being in patients managed expectantly. This suggests that the psychological stress of untreated and treated cancer is similar.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar