Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer
- 382 Downloads
Purpose of Review
Active surveillance is now widely utilized for the management of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The limits of surveillance for men with intermediate risk cancer are controversial. While there is a broad consensus that men with low-risk disease can be safely managed with AS, many potential candidates, including those with Gleason 3 + 4 disease, PSA >10, younger men and African-Americans are often excluded.
Outcome data for intermediate-risk patients managed by active surveillance demonstrate reasonable outcomes, but these men clearly are at higher risk for progression to metastatic disease. The use of biomarkers and multiparametric MRI will enable a more precise and personalized risk assessment. Literature describing the effects of young age on outcomes is limited, but the experience reported in prospective series with 15–20 year follow-up suggests it is a safe approach. African-American men are at greater risk for occult co-existent higher-grade disease, but in the absence of this their outcome is favorable.
Patients with intermediate-risk PCa should not be excluded from active surveillance based on a single criterion. Treatment decisions should be based on multiple parameters, including percent Gleason 4, PSA density, cancer volume on biopsy, MRI findings, and patient age and co-morbidity. Genetic tissue-based biomarkers are also likely to play a role in enhancing decision making.
KeywordsProstate cancer Active surveillance Intermediate risk
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
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.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.• Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C, Morton GC, DeBoeer 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. The first paper reporting the outcome of ‘active surveillance’. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.•• Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415. The pivotal PROTECT study which successfully randomized more than 1600 patients between surgery, radiation, and ‘active monitoring’. No difference in 10 year PCSM, but worse progression rate in the active monitoring group (which included 23% intermediate-high risk patients). CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.•• Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):272–7. This important study reported the long term results of an ‘inclusive’ approach to surveillance, emphasizing both the long term safety and increased risk in intermediate risk cancer. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.•• Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, Landis P, Wolf S, Trock BJ, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(30):3379–85. Long term results of a restrictive approach to surveillance, with a PCSM < 1%. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 11.• Musunuru HB, Yamamoto T, Klotz L, Ghanem G, Mamedov A, Sethukavalan P, et al. Active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer: survival outcomes in the Sunnybrook experience. J Urol. 2016;196(6):1651–8. This study, and reference 12 below, stratify men in the Toronto cohort according to the risk of metastasis, and identify the presence of Gleason pattern 4 at baseline, but not PSA > 10, as a significant predictor for metastatic disease despite close surveillance. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Morash C, Tey R, Agbassi C, et al. Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer: Guideline recommendations. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9(5–6):171–8.Google Scholar
- 19.Chen RC, Rumble RB, Loblaw DA, Finelli A, Ehdaie B, Cooperberg MR, et al. Active surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(18):2182–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.NICE. National Collaborating Centre for Cancer. Prostate Cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment. Clinical Guideline. http: http://www.nice.org.uk.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/nicemedia/live/14348/66232/66232.pdf.
- 21.Schiavina R, Borghesi M, Brunocilla E, et al. The biopsy Gleason score 3+4 in a single core does not necessarily reflect an unfavourable pathological disease after radical prostatectomy in comparison with biopsy Gleason score 3+3: looking for larger selection criteria for active surveillance candidates. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015;18:270–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.•• 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. A classic autopsy study showing a high rate of autopsy identified prostate cancer beginning in the 30s. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.• Leapman MS, Cowan JE, Nguyen HG, et al. Active surveillance in younger men with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(17):1898–1904. An important study showing the safety of surveillance in young men. Google Scholar
- 35.Nguyen PL, Martin NE, Choeurng V, Palmer-Aronsten B, Kolisnik T, Beard CJ, et al. Utilization of biopsy-based genomic classifier to predict distant metastasis after definitive radiation and short-course ADT for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017; doi: 10.1038/pcan.2016.58.
- 36.Cullen J, Rosner IL, Brand TC, et al. A biopsy-based 17-gene genomic prostate score predicts recurrence after radical prostatectomy and adverse surgical pathology in a racially diverse population of men with clinically low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68:123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.• Cuzick J, Stone S, Fisher G, et al. Validation of an RNA cell cycle progression score for predicting death from prostate cancer in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Br J Cancer. 2015;113:382. One of the only biomarker studies with a PCSM end point. Strong validation of the Prolaris assay CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar