Laurence Klotz1. 1. Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Ave. #MG408, Toronto, Ontario, M4N 3M5, Canada. Laurence.klotz@sunnybrook.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Active surveillance is now widely utilized for the management of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The limits of surveillance for men with intermediate risk cancer are controversial. While there is a broad consensus that men with low-risk disease can be safely managed with AS, many potential candidates, including those with Gleason 3 + 4 disease, PSA >10, younger men and African-Americans are often excluded. RECENT FINDINGS: Outcome data for intermediate-risk patients managed by active surveillance demonstrate reasonable outcomes, but these men clearly are at higher risk for progression to metastatic disease. The use of biomarkers and multiparametric MRI will enable a more precise and personalized risk assessment. Literature describing the effects of young age on outcomes is limited, but the experience reported in prospective series with 15-20 year follow-up suggests it is a safe approach. African-American men are at greater risk for occult co-existent higher-grade disease, but in the absence of this their outcome is favorable. Patients with intermediate-risk PCa should not be excluded from active surveillance based on a single criterion. Treatment decisions should be based on multiple parameters, including percent Gleason 4, PSA density, cancer volume on biopsy, MRI findings, and patient age and co-morbidity. Genetic tissue-based biomarkers are also likely to play a role in enhancing decision making.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Active surveillance is now widely utilized for the management of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The limits of surveillance for men with intermediate risk cancer are controversial. While there is a broad consensus that men with low-risk disease can be safely managed with AS, many potential candidates, including those with Gleason 3 + 4 disease, PSA >10, younger men and African-Americans are often excluded. RECENT FINDINGS: Outcome data for intermediate-risk patients managed by active surveillance demonstrate reasonable outcomes, but these men clearly are at higher risk for progression to metastatic disease. The use of biomarkers and multiparametric MRI will enable a more precise and personalized risk assessment. Literature describing the effects of young age on outcomes is limited, but the experience reported in prospective series with 15-20 year follow-up suggests it is a safe approach. African-American men are at greater risk for occult co-existent higher-grade disease, but in the absence of this their outcome is favorable. Patients with intermediate-risk PCa should not be excluded from active surveillance based on a single criterion. Treatment decisions should be based on multiple parameters, including percent Gleason 4, PSA density, cancer volume on biopsy, MRI findings, and patient age and co-morbidity. Genetic tissue-based biomarkers are also likely to play a role in enhancing decision making.
Entities:
Keywords:
Active surveillance; Intermediate risk; Prostate cancer
Authors: Sung Kyu Hong; Emily Vertosick; Daniel D Sjoberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-09-27 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Adam I Cole; Todd M Morgan; Daniel E Spratt; Ganesh S Palapattu; Chang He; Scott A Tomlins; Alon Z Weizer; Felix Y Feng; Angela Wu; Javed Siddiqui; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Lakshmi P Kunju; David C Miller; Brent K Hollenbeck; John T Wei; Rohit Mehra Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael S Leapman; Janet E Cowan; Hao G Nguyen; Katsuto K Shinohara; Nannette Perez; Matthew R Cooperberg; William J Catalona; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Debasish Sundi; Ashley E Ross; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; H Ballentine Carter; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R Schiavina; M Borghesi; E Brunocilla; D Romagnoli; D Diazzi; F Giunchi; V Vagnoni; C V Pultrone; H Dababneh; A Porreca; M Fiorentino; G Martorana Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Cheng Cheng Huang; Max Xiangtian Kong; Ming Zhou; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Jonathan Melamed; Fang-Ming Deng Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: J Cuzick; D M Berney; G Fisher; D Mesher; H Møller; J E Reid; M Perry; J Park; A Younus; A Gutin; C S Foster; P Scardino; J S Lanchbury; S Stone Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Sigrid Carlsson; Nicole Benfante; Ricardo Alvim; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Michal Wiseman; Maha Mamoor; Behfar Ehdaie; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; James Eastham; Karim Touijer Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ivo G Schoots; Daniel F Osses; Frank-Jan H Drost; Jan F M Verbeek; Sebastiaan Remmers; Geert J L H van Leenders; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2018-02
Authors: Mats Steinholtz Ahlberg; Hans-Olov Adami; Kerri Beckmann; Helena Bertilsson; Ola Bratt; Declan Cahill; Lars Egevad; Hans Garmo; Lars Holmberg; Eva Johansson; Antti Rannikko; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Fredrik Jäderling; Cecilia Wassberg; Ulrika W N Åberg; Anna Bill-Axelson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Muammer Altok; Patricia Troncoso; Mary F Achim; Surena F Matin; Graciela N Gonzalez; John W Davis Journal: Asian J Androl Date: 2019 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.285
Authors: Fabian Tollens; Niklas Westhoff; Jost von Hardenberg; Sven Clausen; Michael Ehmann; Frank G Zöllner; Anne Adlung; Dominik F Bauer; Stefan O Schoenberg; Dominik Nörenberg Journal: Radiologe Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Rutvij A Khanolkar; Harvey Quon; Kundan Thind; Michael Sia; Michael Roumeliotis; Siraj Husain; Philip McGeachy; Tyler Meyer; Kevin Martell Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-07-01