Laurence Klotz1. 1. Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Laurence.klotz@sunnybrook.ca
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This is a summary of the current approach to patient selection for active surveillance, including eligibility criteria, current controversies and the role of imaging. RECENT FINDINGS: Active surveillance is based on the concept that Gleason 6 prostate cancer is, in most cases, an indolent condition that poses little or no threat to the patient's life. Substantial recent data suggest that Gleason pattern 3 does not have the molecular characteristics of malignancy. A subset of patients harbour more aggressive disease that was missed on the initial diagnostic biopsies, and a smaller group will progress over time to higher grade disease. Active surveillance involves initial expectant management for patients with favourable risk disease, and serial biopsy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Most patients with Gleason 6 prostate cancer are candidates. Very low risk patients fulfil the Epstein criteria, with only one or two positive cores, no core with more than 50% involvement and a PSA density of less than 0.15. Low-risk patients have Gleason 6 disease and PSA 10 or less but do not satisfy the Epstein criteria. Higher volume of Gleason 6 disease on biopsy predicts for a higher likelihood of higher grade cancer, but in and of itself should not mandate treatment. Patients with Gleason 7 in whom the extent of Gleason 4 pattern is less than 10% may also be candidates. Patient age, comorbidity and personal preferences must also be considered. SUMMARY: Active surveillance is an effective and well tolerated method to reduce the overtreatment associated with screen-detected prostate cancer. About 50% of newly diagnosed patients are eligible for this approach. Multiple factors, including patient age, comorbidity, cancer risk category and patient preferences, must be considered.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This is a summary of the current approach to patient selection for active surveillance, including eligibility criteria, current controversies and the role of imaging. RECENT FINDINGS: Active surveillance is based on the concept that Gleason 6 prostate cancer is, in most cases, an indolent condition that poses little or no threat to the patient's life. Substantial recent data suggest that Gleason pattern 3 does not have the molecular characteristics of malignancy. A subset of patients harbour more aggressive disease that was missed on the initial diagnostic biopsies, and a smaller group will progress over time to higher grade disease. Active surveillance involves initial expectant management for patients with favourable risk disease, and serial biopsy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Most patients with Gleason 6 prostate cancer are candidates. Very low risk patients fulfil the Epstein criteria, with only one or two positive cores, no core with more than 50% involvement and a PSA density of less than 0.15. Low-risk patients have Gleason 6 disease and PSA 10 or less but do not satisfy the Epstein criteria. Higher volume of Gleason 6 disease on biopsy predicts for a higher likelihood of higher grade cancer, but in and of itself should not mandate treatment. Patients with Gleason 7 in whom the extent of Gleason 4 pattern is less than 10% may also be candidates. Patient age, comorbidity and personal preferences must also be considered. SUMMARY: Active surveillance is an effective and well tolerated method to reduce the overtreatment associated with screen-detected prostate cancer. About 50% of newly diagnosed patients are eligible for this approach. Multiple factors, including patient age, comorbidity, cancer risk category and patient preferences, must be considered.
Authors: Henk van der Poel; Laurence Klotz; Gerald Andriole; Abdel-Rahmène Azzouzi; Anders Bjartell; Olivier Cussenot; Freddy Hamdy; Markus Graefen; Paolo Palma; Arturo Rodriguez Rivera; Christian G Stief Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Michele Fascelli; Arvin K George; Thomas Frye; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: William G Chu; Brian J Kim; Jeff Slezak; Teresa N Harrison; Joy Gelfond; Steven J Jacobsen; Gary W Chien Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Tatsuo Gondo; Bing Ying Poon; Kazuhiro Matsumoto; Melanie Bernstein; Daniel D Sjoberg; James A Eastham Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jiwoong Yu; Young Suk Kwon; Sinae Kim; Christopher Sejong Han; Nicholas Farber; Jongmyung Kim; Seok Soo Byun; Wun-Jae Kim; Seong Soo Jeon; Isaac Yi Kim Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 7.450