Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature
ABSTRACT CONTEXT: Prostate cancer (PCa) remains an increasingly common malignancy worldwide. The optimal management of clinically localized, early-stage disease remains unknown, and profound quality of life issues surround PCa interventions. OBJECTIVE: To systematically summarize the current literature on the management of low-risk PCa with active surveillance (AS), with a focus on patient selection, outcomes, and future research needs. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive search of the PubMed and Embase databases from 1980 to 2011 was performed to identify studies pertaining to AS for PCa. The search terms used included prostate cancer and active surveillance or conservative management or watchful waiting or expectant management. Selected studies for outcomes analysis had to provide a comprehensive description of entry characteristics, criteria for surveillance, and indicators for further intervention. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Data from seven large AS series were reviewed. Inclusion criteria for surveillance vary among studies, and eligibility therefore varies considerably (4-82%). PCa-specific mortality remains low (0-1%), with the longest published median follow-up being 6.8 yr. Up to one-third of patients receive secondary therapy after a median of about 2.5 yr of surveillance. Surveillance protocols and triggers for intervention vary among institutions. Most patients are treated for histologic reclassification (27-100%) or prostate-specific antigen doubling time <3 yr (13-48%), while 7-13% are treated with no evidence of progression. Repeat prostate biopsy with a minimum of 12 cores appears to be important for monitoring patients for changes in tumor histology over time. CONCLUSIONS: AS for PCa offers an opportunity to limit intervention to patients who will likely benefit the most from radical treatment. This approach confers a low risk of disease-specific mortality in the short to intermediate term. An early, confirmatory biopsy is essential for limiting the risk of underestimating tumor grade and amount.
SourceAvailable from: Radka Stoyanova[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: An important key to clinical management of prostate cancer patients is to determine early those who will benefit from primary treatment and are not good candidates for active surveillance (AS). We describe a 67-year-old gentleman with a long history of stable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and a negative biopsy. After slight PSA rise and low volume Gleason score 6 biopsy, the patient was considered for primary treatment or AS. A multiparametric (MP)-MRI exam revealed a suspicious lesion in the anterior apex of the prostate. Biopsies were carried out on a 3D-ultrasound prostate biopsy system with MRI-fusion. The location of the target area was challenging and could have been missed using standard 12-core biopsy template. The pathology determined Gleason 3 + 4 disease in 30% of the core from this region. Consequently, the patient underwent radiotherapy (RT). MP-MRI was also used to follow the changes from pre- to post-RT.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Focal therapy is a treatment strategy for men with localized prostate cancer that may serve as an alternative option to radical therapy. A number of minimally invasive ablative technologies are available to deliver treatment, and the energies most commonly used include high-intensity focused ultrasound and cryotherapy. The benefit of a tissue-preserving approach is the limitation of damage to key structures such as the neurovascular bundles, external urinary sphincter, rectal mucosa and bladder neck. This in turn minimizes side effects typically associated with radical therapies whilst also aiming to maintain oncological control. Over 30 single-centre studies of focal therapy have been published to date reporting excellent continence rates, good potency rates and acceptable short-term oncological outcomes. However, there are a number of controversial aspects associated with focal therapy including the index lesion hypothesis, patient selection criteria, assessment of treatment effect and the lack of medium- and long-term oncological outcomes. In the process of the adoption of new technology, there is a limited window of opportunity to provide this evidence in well-designed prospective trials. Men should be allowed to benefit from the potential advantages of this novel treatment whilst under close surveillance.An English version of this article is available under dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00120-014-3734-7.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Increasing proportions of men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the UK are presenting with non-metastatic disease. We investigated how treatment trends in this demographic have changed. Non-metastatic cancers diagnosed from 2000-2010 in the UK Anglian Cancer network stratified by age and risk group were analysed [n = 10,365]. Radiotherapy [RT] and prostatectomy [RP] cancer specific survival [CSS] were further compared [n = 4755]. Over the decade we observed a fall in uptake of primary androgen deprivation therapy but a rise in conservative management [CM] and radical therapy [p<0.0001]. CM in particular has become the primary management for low-risk disease by the decade end [p<0.0001]. In high-risk disease however both RP and RT uptake increased significantly but in an age dependent manner [p<0.0001]. Principally, increased RP in younger men and increased RT in men ≥ 70y. In multivariate analysis of radically treated men both high-risk disease [HR 8.0 [2.9-22.2], p<0.0001] and use of RT [HR 1.9 [1.0-3.3], p = 0.024] were significant predictors of a poorer CSM. In age-stratified analysis however, the trend to benefit of RP over RT was seen only in younger men [≤ 60 years] with high-risk disease [p = 0.07]. The numbers needed to treat by RP instead of RT to save one cancer death was 19 for this group but 67 for the overall cohort. This study has identified significant shifts in non-metastatic prostate cancer management over the last decade. Low-risk disease is now primarily managed by CM while high-risk disease is increasingly treated radically. Treatment of high-risk younger men by RP is supported by evidence of better CSM but this benefit is not evident in older men.PLoS ONE 03/2015; 10(3):e0119494. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0119494 · 3.53 Impact Factor