Literature DB >> 34980492

Systematic Review of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer to Develop Recommendations Regarding Inclusion of Intermediate-risk Disease, Biopsy Characteristics at Inclusion and Monitoring, and Surveillance Repeat Biopsy Strategy.

Peter-Paul M Willemse1, Niall F Davis2, Nikolaos Grivas3, Fabio Zattoni4, Michael Lardas5, Erik Briers6, Marcus G Cumberbatch7, Maria De Santis8, Paolo Dell'Oglio9, James F Donaldson10, Nicola Fossati9, Giorgio Gandaglia9, Silke Gillessen11, Jeremy P Grummet12, Ann M Henry13, Matthew Liew14, Steven MacLennan15, Malcolm D Mason16, Lisa Moris17, Karin Plass18, Shane O'Hanlon19, Muhammad Imran Omar15, Daniela E Oprea-Lager20, Karl H Pang7, Catherine C Paterson21, Guillaume Ploussard22, Olivier Rouvière23, Ivo G Schoots24, Derya Tilki25, Roderick C N van den Bergh26, Thomas Van den Broeck17, Theodorus H van der Kwast27, Henk G van der Poel28, Thomas Wiegel29, Cathy Yuhong Yuan30, Philip Cornford31, Nicolas Mottet32, Thomas B L Lam10.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa).
OBJECTIVE: To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, ≥80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy; 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement ≤50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded; (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr; and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading); patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified. PATIENT
SUMMARY: We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter).
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; Clinical practice guidelines and recommendations; Consensus statements; Core involvement; Criteria for inclusion and eligibility; Localised prostate cancer; Monitoring and reclassification; Per-protocol or untriggered repeat biopsies; Positive cores; Systematic review

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34980492     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.12.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  6 in total

1.  [Functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy in Germany-time for action!]

Authors:  Ahmed Magheli; Jonas Busch; Stefan Hinz
Journal:  Urologie       Date:  2022-07-21

2.  Challenging cases in high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Stefano Tappero; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Mattia Longoni; Carlo Buratto; Erika Palagonia; Pietro Scilipoti; Enrico Vecchio; Marco Martiriggiano; Silvia Secco; Alberto Olivero; Michele Barbieri; Giancarlo Napoli; Elena Strada; Giovanni Petralia; Dario Di Trapani; Aldo Massimo Bocciardi; Antonio Galfano
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 3.661

Review 3.  Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Current Data.

Authors:  Leandro Blas; Masaki Shiota; Masatoshi Eto
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-27       Impact factor: 6.575

4.  Developing machine learning algorithms for dynamic estimation of progression during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Changhee Lee; Alexander Light; Evgeny S Saveliev; Mihaela van der Schaar; Vincent J Gnanapragasam
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2022-08-06

Review 5.  Active surveillance versus nonradical treatment for low-risk men with prostate cancer: a review.

Authors:  Sachin Perera; Jodie McDonald; Isabella Williams; Jonathan O'Brien; Declan Murphy; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2022-08-24

6.  Low annual hospital volume of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is not associated with higher revision rates.

Authors:  R Kyle Martin; Andreas Persson; Gilbert Moatshe; Anne Marie Fenstad; Lars Engebretsen; Jon Olav Drogset; Håvard Visnes
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 4.114

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.