Advertisement

Active Surveillance for Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer: Background, Patient Selection, Triggers for Intervention, and Outcomes

  • Laurence Klotz
Chapter

Abstract

Modern medicine, with its emphasis on early detection of disease, has enhanced the health of men and women throughout the world. However, early detection of disease carries with it a significant risk of overdetection of conditions that, although they fulfill pathological or clinical criteria for disease, pose little or no threat to the patient.

Keywords

Prostate Cancer Radical Prostatectomy Active Surveillance Localize Prostate Cancer Repeat Biopsy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L et al (2011) RP vs WW in early PCa. N Engl J Med 364:18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bray F, Lortet-Tieulent J, Ferlay J, Forman D, Auvinen A (2010) Prostate cancer incidence and mortality trends in 37 European countries: an overview. Eur J Cancer 46(17):3040–3052PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C, Metter EJ, Landis P, Walsh PC, Epstein JI (2007) Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the johns Hopkins experience. J Urol 178(6):2359–2365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF, Reese AC, Zaid HB, Porten SP, Shinohara K, Meng MV, Greene KL, Carroll PR (2011) Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:228–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis JW, Kim J, Ward JF, Wang X, Nakanishi H, Babaian RJ, Troncoso P (2010) Radical prostatectomy findings in patients predicted to have low-volume/low-grade prostate cancer diagnosed by extended-core biopsies: an analysis of volume and zonal distribution of tumour foci. BJU Int 105:1386–1391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Delongchamps NB, Beuvon F, Eiss D, Flam T, Muradyan N, Zerbib M, Peyromaure M, Cornud F (2011) Multiparametric MRI is helpful to predict tumor focality, stage, and size in patients diagnosed with unilateral low-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 14:232–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A et al (2009) Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:374–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duffield AS, Lee TK, Miyamoto H, Carter HB, Epstein JI (2009) Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails. J Urol 182(5):2274–2278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eggener S, Scardino P, Walsh P et al (2011) 20 year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 85(3):869–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fütterer JJ, Barentsz J, Heijmijnk ST (2009) Imaging modalities for prostate cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 9(7):923–937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greene KK, Albertsen PC, Babaian RJ et al (2009) PSA best practice statement: 2009 update. J Urol 182:2232–2241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G et al (2010) Mortality results from the Gotebörg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol 11:725–732PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Johansson S, Bergström R, Adami HO (1997) Fifteen-year survival in prostate cancer. A prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA 277(6):467–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kabalin JN, McNeal JE, Price HM, Freiha FS, Stamey TA (1989) Unsuspected adenocarcinoma of the prostate in patients undergoing cystoprostatectomy for other causes: incidence, histology and morphometric observations. J Urol 141(5):1091–1094PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kane CJ, Im R, Amling CL, Presti JC Jr, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Freedland SJ, SEARCH Database Study Group (2010) Outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men who are candidates for active surveillance: results from the SEARCH database. Urology 76:695–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Khatami A, Hugusson PSA (2006) DT and surveillance. Int J Cancer 120:170–174Google Scholar
  17. Klotz L, Thompson I (2011) Early prostate cancer – treat or watch? N Engl J Med 365(6):569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A (2010) Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(1):126–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loblaw A, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Vesprini D, Klotz L (2010) Comparing prostate specific antigen triggers for intervention in men with stable prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 184(5):1942–1946PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mufarrij P, Sankin A, Godoy G, Lepor H (2010) Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology 76:689–692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oliveira IS, Pontes-Junior J, Abe DK, Crippa A, Dall’oglio MF, Nesralah AJ, Leite KR, Reis ST, Srougi M (2010) Undergrading and understaging in patients with clinically insignificant prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol 36(3):292–299PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ploussard G, Salomon L, Xylinas E, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, de la Taille A (2010) Pathological findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance–does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria? J Urol 183(2):539–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Raventós CX, Orsola A, de Torres I, Cecchini L, Trilla E, Planas J, Morote J (2010) Preoperative prediction of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: the role of prostate volume and the number of positive cores. Urol Int 84(2):153–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, de Vries SH, Wolters T, Gosselaar C, van Leenders GJ, Schröder FH (2007) Active surveillance for prostate cancers detected in three subsequent rounds of a screening trial: characteristics, PSA doubling times, and outcome. Eur Urol 51(5):1244–1250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Kettermann A, Feng Z, Carter HB, Walsh PC (2010) Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol 28(17):2810–2816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360:1320–1328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smaldone MC, Cowan JE, Carroll PR, Davies BJ (2010) Eligibility for active surveillance and pathological outcomes for men undergoing radical prostatectomy in a large, community based cohort. J Urol 183(1):138–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Williams S, Ayyathurai R, Kava B, Manoharan M (2008) Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int 101:165–169PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Thaxton CS, Loeb S, Roehl KA, Kan D, Catalona WJ (2010) Treatment outcomes of radical prostatectomy in potential candidates for 3 published active surveillance protocols. Urology 75(2):414–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van As NJ, Parker C (2007) Active surveillance with selective radical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Cancer J 13(5):289–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Aus G, Hugosson J, Rannikko AS, Tammela TL, Bangma CH, Schröder FH (2009) Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance Who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol 55(1):1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van den Bergh RC, Steyerberg EW, Khatami A, Aus G, Pihl CG, Wolters T, van Leeuwen PJ, Roobol MJ, Schröder FH, Hugosson J (2010a) Swedish and Dutch sections of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Is delayed radical prostatectomy in men with low-risk screen-detected prostate cancer associated with a higher risk of unfavorable outcomes? Cancer 116(5):1281–1290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG, Vis-Maters JJ, Rietbergen JB, Pickles T, Cornel EB, Valdagni R, Jaspars JJ, van der Hoeven J, Staerman F, Oomens EH, Rannikko A, Roemeling S, Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Schröder FH, Bangma CH (2010b) Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre ‘Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance’ study. BJU Int 105(7):956–962PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vickers A (2008) Systematic review of pretreatment PSA velocity and doubling time as PCA predictors. J Clin Oncol 27:398–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Villeirs GM, De Meerleer GO, De Visschere PJ, Fonteyne VH, Verbaeys AC, Oosterlinck W (2011) 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 77:340–345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Welch HG, Black WC (2010) Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(9):605–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wolters T, Roobol M, Schröder F, van der Kwast T (2011) A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data Set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 185:121–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations