INTRODUCTION: The implementation of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has coincided with a decrease in mortality rate from prostate cancer at the cost of overtreatment. Active surveillance has thus emerged to address the concern for over-treatment in men with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: A contemporary review of literature with respect to low-risk prostate cancer and active surveillance was conducted. The premise of active surveillance, ideal candidates, follow-up practices, treatment triggers, and the observed outcomes of delayed interventions are reviewed. Various institutional protocols are compared and contrasted. RESULTS: Eligibility criteria from various institutions share similar principles. Candidates are followed with PSA kinetics and/or repeat biopsies to identify those who require intervention. Various triggers for intervention have been recognized achieving overall and cancer-specific survival rates > 90% in most protocols. New biomarkers, imaging modalities and genetic tests are also currently being investigated to enhance the efficacy of active surveillance programs. CONCLUSION: Active surveillance has been shown to be safe and effective in managing men with low-risk prostate cancer. Although as high as 30% of men on surveillance will eventually need intervention, survival rates with delayed intervention remain reassuring. Long-term studies are needed for further validation of current active surveillance protocols.
INTRODUCTION: The implementation of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has coincided with a decrease in mortality rate from prostate cancer at the cost of overtreatment. Active surveillance has thus emerged to address the concern for over-treatment in men with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: A contemporary review of literature with respect to low-risk prostate cancer and active surveillance was conducted. The premise of active surveillance, ideal candidates, follow-up practices, treatment triggers, and the observed outcomes of delayed interventions are reviewed. Various institutional protocols are compared and contrasted. RESULTS: Eligibility criteria from various institutions share similar principles. Candidates are followed with PSA kinetics and/or repeat biopsies to identify those who require intervention. Various triggers for intervention have been recognized achieving overall and cancer-specific survival rates > 90% in most protocols. New biomarkers, imaging modalities and genetic tests are also currently being investigated to enhance the efficacy of active surveillance programs. CONCLUSION: Active surveillance has been shown to be safe and effective in managing men with low-risk prostate cancer. Although as high as 30% of men on surveillance will eventually need intervention, survival rates with delayed intervention remain reassuring. Long-term studies are needed for further validation of current active surveillance protocols.
Entities:
Keywords:
Prostate cancer; active surveillance; active surveillance guidelines; low risk prostate cancer
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Mario Eisenberger; Frederick J Dorey; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David J Grossklaus; Christopher S Coffey; Scott B Shappell; Gregory S Jack; Sam S Chang; Michael S Cookson Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mark S Soloway; Cynthia T Soloway; Ahmed Eldefrawy; Kristell Acosta; Bruce Kava; Murugesan Manoharan Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-08-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: John W Davis; Jeri Kim; John F Ward; Xuemai Wang; Hiro Nakanishi; R Joseph Babaian; Patricia Troncoso Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Lisa F Newcomb; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Ziding Feng; Martin E Gleave; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Daniel W Lin Journal: Urology Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Marcin Popiolek; Jennifer R Rider; Ove Andrén; Sven-Olof Andersson; Lars Holmberg; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-10-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Young Suk Kwon; Christopher Sejong Han; Ji Woong Yu; Sinae Kim; Parth Modi; Rachel Davis; Ji Hae Park; Paul Lee; Yun-Sok Ha; Wun-Jae Kim; Isaac Yi Kim Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Ho Won Kang; Joo Yong Lee; Jong Kyou Kwon; Seong Uk Jeh; Hae Do Jung; Kang Su Cho; Won Sik Ham; Young Deuk Choi Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Chunhuan Lao; Richard Edlin; Paul Rouse; Charis Brown; Michael Holmes; Peter Gilling; Ross Lawrenson Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 4.430