Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Overview and Update
- 1.1k Downloads
Low-risk prostate cancer: How I would treat it?
Overtreatment of many conditions diagnosed by screening has become increasingly recognized as a contemporary malady associated with modern medicine’s efforts at earlier detection. The diagnosis of low-grade prostate cancer clearly qualifies as an example of potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer is an attempt to reduce the overtreatment of the disease. The approach involves initial expectant management rather than immediate therapy. Curative treatment is deferred while the patient is monitored and offered for evidence of risk reclassification to a more aggressive form of the disease. The basis for this approach is substantial evidence confirming the long natural history of most prostate cancers. The objective is to balance the risks of overtreatment and associated adverse quality of life effects, against the risk of progression of disease and a missed opportunity for curative therapy. Low-risk prostate cancer is more accurately viewed as one of several risk factors for the patient harboring higher-grade disease, rather than a life-threatening condition. This approach is similar to that taken historically for so-called precancerous conditions, such as PIN or ASAP, where patients were managed with close follow-up but without radical intervention unless clear evidence of more aggressive disease is identified. Active surveillance is increasingly viewed as the management of choice for patients with very low-risk (low-grade, low-volume prostate cancer) and low-risk (low-grade but higher volume) disease.
KeywordsProstate cancer Active surveillance Conservative management Low risk cancer Risk reclassification
European Randomized Trial of Screening for Prostate Cancer
Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial
magnetic resonance imaging
No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.
References and Recommended Reading
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 5.•Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, Bergdahl S, Khatami A, Lodding P, et al. Mortality results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:725–32. The most mature, high-quality screening study in the literature shows a significant mortality reduction and a NNT of 12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.••Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer. 1993;71:933–8. A historic paper that provided the basis for the widely utilized definition of clinically insignificant disease as Gleason pattern 3 or less, with 0.5 cc or less of cancer.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.•Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, van den Bergh RCN, Hoedemaeker RF, van Leenders GJLH, et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol. 2011;185:121–5. A redefinition of “clinically insignificant disease” based on ERSPC data. Should be read in comparison with reference 11, above.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.•Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W, et al. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:591–95. Conclusions of the historic NIH Consensus Conference on active surveillance.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, de Vries SH, Wolters T, Gosselaar C, van Leenders GJLH, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancers detected in three subsequent rounds of a screening trial: characteristics, PSA doubling times, and outcome. Eur Urol. 2007;51:1244–50. discussion 1251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.••Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:126–31. Latest results of the largest, single-center, most mature, prospective cohort of active surveillance patients.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C, Morton GC, DeBoer G, Szumacher E, 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(4):1664–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Zhu X, Rannikko A, Vasarainen H, Bangma CH, Schröder FH, Roobol MJ: Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012 Aug 29Google Scholar
- 36.•Vickers AJ, Savage C, O'Brien MF, Lilja H. Systematic review of pretreatment prostate-specific antigen velocity and doubling time as predictors for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:398–403. A very negative systematic overview regarding the value of PSA kinetics in the prediction of aggressivity of localized prostate cancer.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Villeirs GM, de Meerleer GO, de Visschere PJ, Fonteyne VH, Verbaeys AC, Oosterlinck W. Combined magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy in the assessment of high grade prostate carcinoma in patients with elevated PSA: a single-institution experience of 356 patients. Eur J Radiol. 2011;77:340–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.•Fleshner NE, Lucia MS, Egerdie B, Aaron L, Eure G, Nandy I, et al. Dutasteride in localised prostate cancer management: the REDEEM randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;379:1103–11. This randomized study demonstrates the value of five ARI in men on surveillance. More than a 40% reduction in “progression” was seen, with no increase in high grade cancer in the five ARI group.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar