Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

  • Prostate Cancer (A Kibel, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is ample evidence that low risk and many cases of low-/intermediate-risk prostate cancer, are indolent, have little or no metastatic potential, and do not pose a threat to the patient in his lifetime. Major strides have been made in understanding who these patients are and in encouraging the use of conservative management in such individuals. A component of conservative management is the early identification of those ‘low-risk’ patients who harbour higher risk disease, and benefit from definitive therapy. This represents about 30 % of newly diagnosed low-risk patients. A further small proportion of patients with low-risk disease demonstrate biological progression to higher grade disease. Men with lower risk disease can defer treatment, in most cases for life. Men with higher risk disease that can be localized to a relatively small volume of the prostate can undergo selective therapy. The results of active surveillance, embodying conservative management with selective delayed intervention for the subset who are re-classified as higher risk overtime based on repeat biopsy, imaging or biomarker results have shown that this approach is safe in the intermediate to long term, with a 3 % cancer specific mortality at 10–15 years. Further refinement of the surveillance approach is ongoing, incorporating MRI, targeted biopsies and molecular biomarkers.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Gawende A. Two hundred years of surgery. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1716–23. This outstanding article is a historical summary of progress in surgery over the last 2 centuries. It puts current practice into perspective. This should be required reading for all surgeons.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sakr WA, Grignon DJ, Crissman JD, Heilbrun LK, Cassin BJ, Pontes JJ, et al. High grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and prostatic adenocarcinoma between the ages of 20-69: an autopsy study of 249 cases. In Vivo. 1994;8(3):439–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zlotta AR, Egawa S, Pushkar D, Govorov A, Kimura T, Kido M, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer on autopsy: cross-sectional study on unscreened Caucasian and Asian men. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(14):1050-8. doi:10.1093/jnci/djt151.

  4. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell. 2000;100:57–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646–74. This is a classic, comprehensive article on the molecular genetics of cancer. It summarizes the state of knowledge for every major cancer pathway, and is fascinating reading.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahmed H, Emberton M. Do low-grade and low-volume prostate cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy? Lancet Oncol. 2012. This article applies the understanding of molecular pathways described in the Hanahan and Weinberg article to prostate cancer.

  7. Ross AE, Marchionni L, Vuica-Ross M, et al. Gene expression pathways of high grade localized prostate cancer. Prostate. 2011;71:1568–77.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Skacel M, Ormsby AH, Pettay JD, et al. Aneusomy of chromosomes 7, 8, and 17 and amplification of HER-2/neu and epidermal growth factor receptor in Gleason score 7 prostate carcinoma: a differential fluorescent in situ hybridization study of Gleason pattern 3 and 4 using tissue microarray. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:1392–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Padar A, Sathyanarayana UG, Suzuki M, Maruyama R, Hsieh JT, Frenkel EP, et al. Inactivation of cyclin D2 gene in prostate cancers by aberrant promoter methylation. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9(13):4730-4.

  10. Susaki E, Nakayama KI. Multiple mechanisms for p27(Kip1) translocation and degradation. Cell Cycle. 2007;6:3015–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tomlins SA, Mehra R, Rhodes DR, et al. Integrative molecular concept modeling of prostate cancer progression. Nat Genet. 2007;39:41–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fleischmann A, Huland H, Mirlacher M, et al. Prognostic relevance of Bcl-2 overexpression in surgically treated prostate cancer is not caused by increased copy number or translocation of the gene. Prostate. 2012;72:991–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Serrano M. Cancer: a lower bar for senescence. Nature. 2010;464(7287):363–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. West AF, O’Donnell M, Charlton RG, Neal DE, Leung HY. Correlation of vascular endothelial growth factor expression with fibroblast growth factor-8 expression and clinico-pathologic parameters in human prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2001;85:576–83.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Erbersdobler A, Isbarn H, Dix K, Steiner I, Schlomm T, Mirlacher M, et al. Prognostic value of microvessel density in prostate cancer: a tissue microarray study. World J Urol. 2010;28:687–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Guo Y, Sklar GN, Borkowski A, Kyprianou N. Loss of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p27(Kip1) protein in human prostate cancer correlates with tumor grade. Clin Cancer Res. 1997;3:2269–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bismar TA, Dolph M, Teng LH, Liu S, Donnelly B. ERG protein expression reflects hormonal treatment response and is associated with Gleason score and prostate cancer specific mortality. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:538–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lotan TL, Carvalho FL, Peskoe SB, Hicks JL, Good J, Fedor HL, Humphreys E, Han M, Platz EA, Squire JA, De Marzo AM, Berman DM. PTEN loss is associated with upgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy. Mod Pathol. 2014.

  19. True L, Coleman I, Hawley S, et al. A molecular correlate to the Gleason grading system for prostate adenocarcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:10991–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lin D, Bayani J, Wang Y, Sadar MD, Yoshimoto M, Gout PW, et al. Development of metastatic and non-metastatic tumor lines from a patient's prostate cancer specimen-identification of a small subpopulation with metastatic potential in the primary tumor. Prostate. 2010;70(15):1636–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sowalsky AG, Ye H, Bubley GJ, Balk SP. Clonal progression of prostate cancers from Gleason grade 3 to grade 4. Cancer Res. 2013;73(3):1050–5. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-2799. An important paper describing the prevalence of TMPRSS2-ERG translocations and PTEN deletions in Gleason 3 vs 4. These findings establish that a subset of G3 tumors progress to G4 or emerge from a common precursor.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang J, Cai Y, Ren C, Ittmann M. Expression of variant TMPRSS2/ERG fusion messenger RNAs is associated with aggressive prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2006;66:8347–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Berg KD, Vainer B, Thomsen FB, Røder MA3, Gerds TA, Toft BG, Brasso K, Iversen P. ERG Protein expression in diagnostic specimens is associated with increased risk of progression during active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;66(5):851-60. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.058.

  24. Eggener S, Scardino P, Walsh P, et al. 20 year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011;185(3):869–75. A critically important article which confirms the extremely low rate of progression of Gleason 6 to lethal disease in a huge cohort with long term follow up.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Scott Eggener, personal communication

  26. Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE, Simko JP, Wheeler TM, Epstein JI. Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) < =6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes? Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(9):1346-52.

  27. Haffner M, Yegasubramanian S. The clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer. JCI, J Clin Invest. 2013;123(11):4918–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Haffner MC, De Marzo AM, Yegnasubramanian S, Epstein JI, Carter HB. Diagnostic challenges of clonal heterogeneity in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014. A fascinating single case, analyzed by molecular characterization of serial biopsies in a surveillance patient.

  29. Barbieri CE, Demichelis F, Rubin MA. The lethal clone in prostate cancer: redefining the index. Eur Urol. 2014.

  30. Cuzick J, Berney DM. Fisher G and the Transatlantic Prostate Group. Prognostic value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death on conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Br J Cancer. 2012;106:1095–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Knezevic D, Goddard AD, Natraj N, Cherbavaz DB, Clark-Langone KM, Snable J, et al. Analytical validation of the Oncotype DX prostate cancer assay—a clinical RT-PCR assay optimized for prostate needle biopsies. BMC Genomics. 2013;14:690. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-14-690.

  32. Cooperberg MR, Davicioni E, Crisan A, Jenkins RB, Ghadessi M, Karnes RJ Combined value of validated clinical and genomic risk stratification tools for predicting prostate cancer mortality in a high-risk prostatectomy cohort. Eur Urol. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.05.039.

  33. Robinson K, Creed J, Reguly B, Powell C, Wittock R, Klein D, et al. Accurate prediction of repeat prostate biopsy outcomes by a mitochondrial DNA deletion assay. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2013;16(4):398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A, Goldman D, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188(5):1732–8. An outstanding series of 300 low risk patients evaluated with multiparametric MRI, showing an NPV for clinically significant cancer of 97%.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bratt O, Folkvaljon Y, Loeb S, Klotz L, Egevad L, Stattin P. Upper limit of cancer extent on biopsy defining very low risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2014. doi:10.1111/bju.12874.

  36. Wolters T, Roobol M, Schröder F, van der Kwast T. 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.

  37. 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(1):126–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S, Yamamoto Y, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Long term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort. ASCO GU 2014. J Clin Oncol. 2014. This is the latest update of the most mature surveillance cohort in the world, with unique data on the 3% of patients who progressed to metastatic disease and died of prostate cancer.

  39. Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2013;63(4):597-603. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005.

  40. Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Stauf F, Cooperberg MR, et al. Carroll PR active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer. 2008;112(12):2664–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Shiraishi T, Ogawa O, Suzukamo Y, Fukuhara S, et al. Prospective evaluation of selection criteria for active surveillance in Japanese patients with stage T1cN0M0 prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2008;38(2):122–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(16):2185-90. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.32.8112.

  43. Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, de Vries SH, Wolters T, Gosselaar C, van Leenders GJ, 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(5):1244–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, et al. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol. 2010;58:831–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Patel MI, DeConcini DT, Lopez-Corona E, Ohori M, Wheeler T, Scardino PT. An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1520–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Barayan GA, Brimo F, Bégin LR, Hanley JA, Liu Z, Kassouf W, Aprikian AG, Tanguay S. Factors influencing disease progression of prostate cancer under active surveillance: a McGill University Health Center cohort. BJU Int. 2014.

  47. Rubio-Briones J, Iborra I, Ramírez M, Calatrava A, Collado A, Casanova J, Domínguez-Escrig J, Gómez-Ferrer A, Ricós JV, Monrós JL, Dumont R, López-Guerrero JA, Salas D, Solsona E Obligatory information that a patient diagnosed of prostate cancer and candidate for an active surveillance protocol must know. Actas Urol Esp. 2014.

  48. Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, Stranne J, Hugosson J. Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol. 2013;63(1):101–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Thomsen FB, Røder MA, Hvarness H, Iversen P, Brasso K. Active surveillance can reduce overtreatment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dan Med J. 2013;60(2):A4575.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K, Mohammed K, Woode-Amissah R, Horwich A, et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):981-7. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.02.020.

  51. Popiolek M, Rider JR, Andrén O, Andersson SO, Holmberg L, Adami HO, et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer: a final report from three decades of follow-up. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):428-35. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.10.002.

  52. Johansson JE, Andrén O, Andersson SO, Dickman PW, Holmberg L, Magnuson A, et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2713–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Jain S, Loblaw A, Vesprini D, Zhang L, Kattan MW, Mamedov A, et al. Gleason Upgrading with Time in a Large Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohort. J Urol. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.102.

  54. Sundi D, Faisal FA, Trock BJ, Landis PK, Feng Z, Ross AE, Carter HB, Schaeffer EM Reclassification rates are higher among African American men than Caucasians on active surveillance. Urology. 2014.

  55. Sundi D, Ross AE, Humphreys EB, Han M, Partin AW, Carter HB, et al. African American men with very low-risk prostate cancer exhibit adverse oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: should active surveillance still be an option for them? J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(24):2991–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Stephenson A, Klotz L. Comparative propensity analysis of active surveillance vs initial treatment. AUA. 2013.

  57. Hayes JH, Ollendorf DA, Pearson SD, Barry MJ, Kantoff PW, Stewart ST, et al. Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis. JAMA. 2010;304(21):2373-80. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1720.

  58. Reese AC, Cowan JE, Brajtbord JS, Harris CR, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR. The quantitative Gleason score improves prostate cancer risk assessment. Cancer. 2012;118(24):6046–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Porten SP, Whitson JM, Cowan JE, Cooperberg MR, Shinohara K, Perez N, et al. Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(20):2795–800.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Krakowsky Y, Loblaw A, Klotz L. Prostate cancer death of men treated with initial active surveillance: clinical and biochemical characteristics. J Urol. 2010;184(1):131–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Vickers A. Systematic review of pretreatment PSA velocity and doubling time as PCA predictors. J Clin Oncol. 2008;27:398–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Loblaw A, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Vesprini D, et al. Comparing prostate specific antigen triggers for intervention in men with stable prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol. 2010;184(5):1942–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

ᅟ

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Laurence Klotz declares no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Ave. #MG408, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada

    Laurence Klotz

Authors
  1. Laurence Klotz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurence Klotz.

Additional information

This article is part of Topical Collection on Prostate Cancer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klotz, L. Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer. Curr Urol Rep 16, 24 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0492-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0492-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation