Chris Morash1, Rovena Tey2, Chika Agbassi2, Laurence Klotz3, Tom McGowan4, John Srigley5, Andrew Evans6. 1. Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON; 2. Program in Evidence-based Care, Cancer Care Ontario, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON; 3. Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON; 4. The Cancer Centre Bahamas & The Cancer Centre Eastern Caribbean; 5. Credit Valley Hospital, Mississauga, ON; 6. Department of Pathology and Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective is to provide guidance on the role of active surveillance (AS) as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer patients and to ensure that AS is offered to appropriate patients assessed by a standardized protocol. Prostate cancer is often a slowly progressive or sometimes non-progressive indolent disease diagnosed at an early stage with localized tumours that are unlikely to cause morbidity or death. Standard active treatments for prostate cancer include radiotherapy (RT) or radical prostatectomy (RP), but the harms from over diagnosis and overtreatment are of a significant concern. AS is increasingly being considered as a management strategy to avoid or delay the potential harms caused by unnecessary radical treatment. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, guideline databases and relevant meeting proceedings was performed and a systematic review of identified evidence was synthesized to make recommendations relating to the role of AS in the management of localized prostate cancer. RESULTS: No exiting guidelines or reviews were suitable for use in the synthesis of evidence for the recommendations, but 59 reports of primary studies were identified. Due to studies being either non-comparative or heterogeneous, pooled meta-analyses were not conducted. CONCLUSION: The working group concluded that for patients with low-risk (Gleason score ≤6) localized prostate cancer, AS is the preferred disease management strategy. Active treatment (RP or RT) is appropriate for patients with intermediate-risk (Gleason score 7) localized prostate cancer. For select patients with low-volume Gleason 3+4=7 localized prostate cancer, AS can be considered.
INTRODUCTION: The objective is to provide guidance on the role of active surveillance (AS) as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancerpatients and to ensure that AS is offered to appropriate patients assessed by a standardized protocol. Prostate cancer is often a slowly progressive or sometimes non-progressive indolent disease diagnosed at an early stage with localized tumours that are unlikely to cause morbidity or death. Standard active treatments for prostate cancer include radiotherapy (RT) or radical prostatectomy (RP), but the harms from over diagnosis and overtreatment are of a significant concern. AS is increasingly being considered as a management strategy to avoid or delay the potential harms caused by unnecessary radical treatment. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, guideline databases and relevant meeting proceedings was performed and a systematic review of identified evidence was synthesized to make recommendations relating to the role of AS in the management of localized prostate cancer. RESULTS: No exiting guidelines or reviews were suitable for use in the synthesis of evidence for the recommendations, but 59 reports of primary studies were identified. Due to studies being either non-comparative or heterogeneous, pooled meta-analyses were not conducted. CONCLUSION: The working group concluded that for patients with low-risk (Gleason score ≤6) localized prostate cancer, AS is the preferred disease management strategy. Active treatment (RP or RT) is appropriate for patients with intermediate-risk (Gleason score 7) localized prostate cancer. For select patients with low-volume Gleason 3+4=7 localized prostate cancer, AS can be considered.
Authors: Neil E Fleshner; M Scott Lucia; Blair Egerdie; Lorne Aaron; Gregg Eure; Indrani Nandy; Libby Black; Roger S Rittmaster Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: G Igor Pinkhasov; Yu-Kuan Lin; Ricardo Palmerola; Paul Smith; Frank Mahon; Matthew G Kaag; J Edward Dagen; Lewis E Harpster; Carl T Reese; Jay D Raman Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jen-Jane Liu; Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Weiva Sieh; Benjamin I Chung; Iona Cheng; James D Brooks Journal: Pathology Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 5.306
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: Gunnar Steineck; Fred Helgesen; Jan Adolfsson; Paul W Dickman; Jan-Erik Johansson; Bo Johan Norlén; Lars Holmberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-09-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Frej Filén; Mirja Ruutu; Hans Garmo; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Stefan Bratell; Anders Spångberg; Juni Palmgren; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-08-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Masood A Khan; H Ballentine Carter; Jonathan I Epstein; Michael C Miller; Patricia Landis; Patrick W Walsh; Alan W Partin; Robert W Veltri Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Trevor A Flood; Nicola Schieda; Daniel T Keefe; Rodney H Breau; Chris Morash; Kevin Hogan; Eric C Belanger; Kien T Mai; Susan J Robertson Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2016-07-10 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: John R Srigley; Brett Delahunt; Lars Egevad; Hemamali Samaratunga; John Yaxley; Andrew J Evans Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Susan John; Steven Cooper; Rodney H Breau; Trevor A Flood; Ilias Cagiannos; Luke T Lavallee; Christopher Morash; Joseph O'sullivan; Nicola Schieda Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Charlotte F Kweldam; Intan P Kümmerlin; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Chris H Bangma; Luca Incrocci; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol; Geert J van Leenders Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2017-05-19 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Luke T Lavallée; Andrew Stokl; Sonya Cnossen; Ranjeeta Mallick; Chris Morash; Ilias Cagiannos; Rodney H Breau Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.862