Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

Abstract

With the advent of increasingly sensitive and widely used diagnostic testing, cancer overdiagnosis in particular has emerged as a problem in multiple organ sites. This has the greatest ramifications in the case of prostate cancer because of the very high incidence of latent prostate cancer in aging men, the availability of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, and the long-term effects of definitive therapy. The condition of most men with favorable-risk prostate cancer is far removed from the consequences of a rampaging, aggressive disease. Most of these men are not destined to die of their disease, even in the absence of treatment. Unfortunately, most of these patients are treated radically and are exposed to the risk of significant side effects. Therefore, a selective approach to treatment is appealing. The concept is to identify the subset that harbor more aggressive disease early enough that curative therapy is still a possibility, thereby allowing the others to enjoy improved quality of life, free from the side effects of treatment. This review article summarizes the evidence supporting active surveillance, and the current approach to this management strategy, including the roles of serial biopsy, PSA kinetics, and MR imaging.

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

  1. Welch HG, Black WC. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(9):605–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bray F, Lortet-Tieulent J, Ferlay J, Forman D, Auvinen A. Prostate cancer incidence and mortality trends in 37 European countries: an overview. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(17):3040–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1320–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, et al. Mortality results from the Gotebörg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:725–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chou R, Croswell JM, Dana T, et al. Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Available at http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf12/prostate/prostateart.htm. Accessed January 2012.

  6. Greene KK, Albertsen PC, Babaian RJ, et al. PSA best practice statement: 2009 update. J Urol. 2009;182:2232–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 

  8. Eggener S, Scardino P, Walsh P, et al. 20 year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2011;85(3):869–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kabalin JN, McNeal JE, Price HM, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Unsuspected adenocarcinoma of the prostate in patients undergoing cystoprostatectomy for other causes: incidence, histology and morphometric observations. J Urol. 1989;141(5):1091–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, et al. Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:374–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. RP vs WW in Early PCa Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L NEJM 364;18, May 5 2011

  13. Klotz L, Thompson I. Early prostate cancer–treat or watch? N Engl J Med. 2011;365(6):569.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Johansson S, Bergström R, Adami HO. Fifteen-year survival in prostate cancer. A prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA. 1997;277(6):467–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Van As NJ, Parker C. Active surveillance with selective radical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Cancer J. 2007;13(5):289–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C, Metter EJ, Landis P, Walsh PC, et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2359–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Aus G, Hugosson J, Rannikko AS, et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol. 2008 Sep 17

  18. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Williams S, Ayyathurai R, Kava B, Manoharan M. Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int. 2007 Sep 10; [Epub ahead of print]

  19. 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 

  20. Khatami A, Hugusson PSA DT and surveillance: Int J Cancer 2006; 120, 170–174.

    Google Scholar 

  21. van den Bergh RC, Steyerberg EW, Khatami A, Aus G, Pihl CG, Wolters T, et al. 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. 2010;116(5):1281–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG, Vis-Maters JJ, Rietbergen JB, Pickles T, et al. Bangma CHShort-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre ‘Prostate Cancer Research International: active surveillance’ study. BJU Int. 2010;105(7):956–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Aus G, Hugosson J, Rannikko AS, et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol. 2009;55(1):1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Oliveira IS, Pontes-Junior J, Abe DK, Crippa A, Dall'oglio MF, Nesralah AJ, et al. Undergrading and understaging in patients with clinically insignificant prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol. 2010;36(3):292–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kane CJ, Im R, Amling CL, Presti JC Jr, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, et al.; SEARCH Database Study Group. Outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men who are candidates for active surveillance: results from the SEARCH database. Urology. 2010 Apr 13.

  26. Raventós CX, Orsola A, de Torres I, Cecchini L, Trilla E, Planas J, et al. Preoperative prediction of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: the role of prostate volume and the number of positive cores. Urol Int. 2010;84(2):153–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ploussard G, Salomon L, Xylinas E, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, et al. 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. 2010;183(2):539–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Thaxton CS, Loeb S, Roehl KA, Kan D, Catalona WJ. Treatment outcomes of radical prostatectomy in potential candidates for 3 published active surveillance protocols. Urology. 2010;75(2):414–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Smaldone MC, Cowan JE, Carroll PR, Davies BJ. Eligibility for active surveillance and pathological outcomes for men undergoing radical prostatectomy in a large, community based cohort. J Urol. 2010;183(1):138–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Davis JW, Kim J, Ward JF, Wang X, Nakanishi H, Babaian RJ, et al. 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.

  31. Duffield AS, Lee TK, Miyamoto H, Carter HB, Epstein JI. Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails. J Urol. 2009;182(5):2274–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mufarrij P, Sankin A, Godoy G, Lepor H. Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2010 May 20. [Epub ahead of print]

  33. 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 

  34. Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Kettermann A, et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(17):2810–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 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 

  36. Delongchamps NB, Beuvon F, Eiss D, Flam T, Muradyan N, Zerbib M et al. Multiparametric MRI is helpful to predict tumor focality, stage, and size in patients diagnosed with unilateral low-risk prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 14:232–237

  37. Villeirs GM, De Meerleer GO, De Visschere PJ, Fonteyne VH, Verbaeys AC, Oosterlinck W. 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. 2009 Sep 7

  38. Fütterer JJ, Barentsz J, Heijmijnk ST. Imaging modalities for prostate cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2009;9(7):923–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang L, Loblaw A, Klotz L. Modeling prostate specific antigen kinetics in patients on active surveillance. J Urol. 2006;176(4 Pt 1):1392–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Helpap B, Egevad L. Modified Gleason grading. An updated review. Histol Histopathol. 2009;24(5):661–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue #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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Klotz, L. Active Surveillance for Favorable-risk Prostate Cancer: Background, Patient Selection, Triggers for Intervention, and Outcomes. Curr Urol Rep 13, 153–159 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-012-0242-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-012-0242-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation