Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Active surveillance in prostate cancer: the need to standardize

  • Review
  • Published:
Tumor Biology

Abstract

Active surveillance has been proposed as an option for patients with low-risk prostate cancer in order to reduce the effects caused by overdiagnosis. Delaying treatment and applying it only if there is evidence of progression requires a careful identification of these patients. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) serum levels lower than 10 μg/L and Gleason score lower than 7 are the main criteria used to select patients for active surveillance based on experience accumulated in the last two decades. In the selection of patients with active surveillance two points are taken into consideration: (a) Gleason score changes introduced by the Consensus Conference of 2005; (b) differences between assays in the measurement of PSA serum levels, in the selection of patients for active surveillance. Improving the accuracy of patient’s selection for active surveillance requires that Gleason score reassignment must be taken into account, as well as the harmonization between PSA assays. The use of incorrect results leads to misclassification of patients, undermining the goals of active surveillance.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yatani R, Chigusa I, Akazaki K, Stemmermann GN, Welsh RA, Correa P. Geographic pathology of latent prostatic carcinoma. Int J Cancer. 1982;29:611–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Klotz L. Low-risk prostate cancer can and should often be managed with active surveillance and selective delayed intervention. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2008;5:2–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Galper SL, Chen MH, Catalona WJ, Roehl KA, Richie JP, D’Amico AV. Evidence to support a continued stage migration and decrease in prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol. 2006;175:907–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1320–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Etzioni R, Penson DF, Legler JM, di Tommaso D, Boer R, Gann PH, et al. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer Incidente Trenes. J Nat Cancer Inst. 2002;94:981–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Abrahamsson PA, Artibani W, Chapple CR, Wirth M. European Association of Urology position statement on screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2009;56:270–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bastian PJ, Carter BH, Bjartell A, Seitz M, Stanislaus P, Montorsi F, et al. Insignificant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from definition to clinical implications. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1321–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, et al. Updated nomogram to predict pathological stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason Score (Partin Tables) Based on Cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology. 2007;69:1095–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Choo R, DeBoer G, Klotz L, Danjoux C, Morton GC, Rakovitch E, et al. PSA doubling time of prostate carcinoma managed with watchful observation alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;50:615–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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;167:1664–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chun FK, Haese A, Ahyai SA, Walz J, Suardi N, Capitanio U, et al. Critical assessment of tools to predict clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in contemporary men. Cancer. 2008;113:701–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lane JA, Hamdy FC, Martin RM, Turner EL, Neal DE, Donovan JL. Latest results from the UK trials evaluating prostate cancer screening and treatment: the CAP and ProtecT studies. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:3095–101.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. van den Bergh RCN, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schröder FH, Bangma CH. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS Study. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1560–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: patient selection and management. Curr Oncol. 2010;17 Suppl 2:S11–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, et al. EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol. 2011;59:61–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ghani KR, Grigor K, Tulloch DN, Bollina PR, McNeill SA. PSA doubling time of prostate carcinoma managed with watchful observation alone. Eur Urol. 2005;47:196–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, Penson DF, Kowalczyk PDH, Sanders MM, et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1248–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Elevad LL, the ISUP Grading Comité. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:1228–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epstein JL. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 3 + 4 versus Gleason score 4 + 3 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2000;56:823–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Herman CM, Kattan MW, Ohori M, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM. Primary Gleason pattern as a predictor of disease progresión in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a multivariate analysis of 823 men treated with radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:657–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lau WK, Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Weaver AL, Sebo TJ, Zincke H. Prognostic factors for survival of patients with pathological Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: differences in outcome between primary Gleason grades 3 and 4. J Urol. 2001;166:1692–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wright JL, Salinas CA, Lin DW, Kolb S, Koopmeiners J, Feng Z, et al. Prostate cancer specific mortality and Gleason 7 disease differences in prostate cancer outcomes between cases with Gleason 4 _ 3 and Gleason 3 _ 4 tumors in a population based cohort. J Urol. 2009;182:2702–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Klotz L. Low-risk prostate cancer can and should often be managed with active surveillance and selective delayed intervention. Nat Clin Parcticae Urol. 2008;5:2–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Semjonow A, Brandt B, Oberpenning F, Roth S, Hertle L. Discordance Prostate Suppl. 1996;7:3–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Jarrigue V. The need for a lower total PSA cut-off value with PSA assays calibrated to the new WHO standard. Clinical Laboratory International April 2007.

  28. Jansen FH, Roobol M, Bangma CH, van Schaik RH. Clinical impact of new prostate-specific antigen WHO standardization on biopsy rates and cancer detection. Clin Chem. 2008;54:1999–2006.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Stephan C, Klaas M, Müller C, Schnorr D, Loening SA, Jung K. Interchangeability of measurements of total and free prostate-specific antigen in serum with 5 frequently used assay combinations: an update. Clin Chem. 2006;52:59–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Stephan C, Kramer J, Meyer HA, Kristiansen G, Ziemer S, Deger S, et al. Different prostate-specific antigen assays give different results on the same blood sample: an obstacle to recommending uniform limits for prostate biopsies. BJU Int. 2007;99:1427–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Slev PR, La’ulu SL, Roberts WL. Intermethod differences in results for total PSA, free PSA, and percentage of free PSA. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;129:952–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sturgeon C, Dati F, Duffy MJ, Hasholzner U, Klapdor R, Lamerz R, et al. Quality requirements and control: EGTM recommendations. European Group on Tumour Markers. Anticancer Res. 1999;19:2791–4.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, Hospital Clínic, C/ Villarroel, 170, Barcelona, Catalonia, 08036, Spain

    Xavier Filella & Rafael Molina

  2. Department of Urology, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain

    Juan Alcover

Authors
  1. Xavier Filella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juan Alcover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rafael Molina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xavier Filella.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Filella, X., Alcover, J. & Molina, R. Active surveillance in prostate cancer: the need to standardize. Tumor Biol. 32, 839–843 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-011-0193-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-011-0193-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation