Evidence-based approach to active surveillance of prostate cancer

Abstract

Active surveillance is a good management option for some men with non-metastatic prostate cancer. In this review, we examine the evidence for several topics related to active surveillance. We examine: (1) which patients should be eligible for active surveillance, (2) what follow-up (monitoring) protocols should be used for men on surveillance, (3) what is the role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for men on surveillance, and (4) what is the prognosis for men who choose surveillance compared to radical treatment. In many instances, the evidence is evolving or lacking. In these situations, we highlight the limitations of the data.

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

Change history

  • 12 December 2019

    Correction to: In the original publication of the article, the values in the columns “Gleason Score” and “Clinical Stage” under the section Urologic Organization.

References

  1. 1.

    Wong MCS, Goggins WB, Wang HHX et al (2016) Global incidence and mortality for prostate cancer: analysis of temporal patterns and trends in 36 countries. Eur Urol 70:862–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Morash C, Tey R, Agbassi C et al (2015) Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: Guideline recommendations. Can Urol Assoc J 9:171–178. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2806

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E et al (2018) Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: recommended approaches and details of specific care options. J Urol 199:990–997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:272–277. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.1192

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI et al (2015) Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:3379–3385. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R et al (2013) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 63:597–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    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 185:477–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Thompson JE, Hayen A, Landau A et al (2015) Medium-term oncological outcomes for extended vs saturation biopsy and transrectal vs transperineal biopsy in active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int 115:884–891. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Marenghi C, Alvisi MF, Palorini F et al (2017) Eleven-year management of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance: what have we learned? Tumori 103:464–474. https://doi.org/10.5301/tj.5000649

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Newcomb LF, Thompson IM, Boyer HD et al (2016) Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, multi-institutional canary PASS cohort. J Urol 195:313–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.087

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Cristea O, Lavallée LT, Montroy J et al (2016) Active surveillance in Canadian men with low-grade prostate cancer. CMAJ 188:E141–E147. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.150832

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    da Silva V, Cagiannos I, Lavallée LT et al (2017) An assessment of Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria for active surveillance of clinically low-risk prostate cancer patients. Can Urol Assoc J 11:238–243. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4093

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M et al (2012) Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol 62:462–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.011

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management guidance and guidelines NICE. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175. Accessed 19 Aug 2018

  16. 16.

    Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y et al (2013) Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 189:S12–S17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.11.015(discussion S17-18)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Inoue LYT, Lin DW, Newcomb LF et al (2018) Comparative analysis of biopsy upgrading in four prostate cancer active surveillance cohorts. Ann Int Med 168:1–9. https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-0548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Nieboer D, Tomer A, Rizopoulos D et al (2018) Active surveillance: a review of risk-based, dynamic monitoring. Transl Androl Urol 7:106–115. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.12.27

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Loeb S, Zhou Q, Siebert U et al (2017) Active surveillance versus watchful waiting for localized prostate cancer: a model to inform decisions. Eur Urol 72:899–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.07.018

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Sathianathen NJ, Konety BR, Alarid-Escudero F et al (2018) Cost-effectiveness analysis of active surveillance strategies for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Loeb S, Bruinsma SM, Nicholson J et al (2015) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur Urol 67:619–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA et al (2016) Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 26:1606–1612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Somford DM, Hamoen EH, Fütterer JJ et al (2013) The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 190:1728–1734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.021

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Sathianathen NJ, Konety BR, Soubra A et al (2018) Which scores need a core? An evaluation of MR-targeted biopsy yield by PIRADS score across different biopsy indications. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0065-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. The Lancet 389:815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Spectrum bias—why clinicians need to be cautious when applying diagnostic test studies Family Practice Oxford Academic. https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article/25/5/390/443697. Accessed 7 Nov 2018

  29. 29.

    Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L et al (2017) Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol 71:517–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Schoots IG, Nieboer D, Giganti F et al (2018) Is magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy a useful addition to systematic confirmatory biopsy in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 67:627–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.050

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 67:627–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.050

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA et al (2016) 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1415–1424. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J (2005) 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 293:2095–2101. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.17.2095

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF et al (2011) Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:228–234. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.31.4252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H et al (2015) Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 193:807–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM et al (2012) Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 367:203–213. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1113162

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA et al (2016) Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375:1425–1437. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606221

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Barocas DA, Alvarez J, Resnick MJ et al (2017) Association between radiation therapy, surgery, or observation for localized prostate cancer and patient-reported outcomes after 3 years. JAMA 317:1126–1140. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.1704

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luke T. Lavallée.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Witherspoon, L., Breau, R.H. & Lavallée, L.T. Evidence-based approach to active surveillance of prostate cancer. World J Urol 38, 555–562 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02662-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Active surveillance
  • Prostate cancer
  • Prostate cancer screening
  • Shared decision-making