The role of biomarkers and genomic factors during active monitoring of patients with prostate cancer


С. В. Головко
О. Ф. Савицький


Analyzed the raw data on risk factors as predictors of progression of prostate cancer patients in the active surveillance group. Studied high information value of genomic biomarkers and risk factors in determining disease progression. In addition, the lack of some studies are insuf ficient periods of observation.


How to Cite
Головко, С. В., & Савицький, О. Ф. (2016). The role of biomarkers and genomic factors during active monitoring of patients with prostate cancer. Health of Man, (4(59), 115–118.
Author Biographies

С. В. Головко, Клиника урологии Национального военно-медицинского клинического центра «Главный военный клинический госпиталь» МО Украины

S.V. Golovko

О. Ф. Савицький, Украинская военно медицинская академия МО Украины

A.F. Savitsky


Torre LA, Bray F, Liegal RI, Ferlay J. Lortet Tienlent J, Jemal A. Global can cer statistics, 2012. Cancel J clin 2015; 65: 87–108.

Bartch G, Horinger W, Klocker H, et al. Prostate cancer mortality after introduction of prostate specific anti gen screening in the Federal state of Tyrol, Austria. Urology 2001; 58; 417–24.

Roobol MJ, Kerkhof M, Schroder FH, et al. Prostate cancer mortality reduc tion by prostate specific antigen based screening adjusted for nonattendance and contamination in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer ( ERSPC). Eur Urol 2009; 56: 584–91.

Klotz L. Prostate cancer overdiagno sis and overtreatment. Curr Opin Endocrinal Diabetes Obes 2013; 20: 2004–9.

Tseng KS, Landis P, Epstein JI, Trock BJ, Carter HB. Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2010; 183: 1779–85.

Lees K, Durve M, Parker C. Active surveillance in prostate cancer: patient selection and triggers for intervention. Curr Opin Urol 2012; 22: 210–5.

Iremashvili V, Soloway MS, Rosenberg DI, Manoharan M. Clinical and demographic characteristics asso ciated with prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance. J urol 2012; 187: 1594–9.

Cohn JA, Dangle PP, Wang CE, et al. The prognostic significance of perineur al invasion and race in men considering active surveillance, BJU Int 2014; 114: 75–80.

Cullen J, Brassell S, Chen Y, Srivastava S, McLeod D. All cause mor tality among military health care benefi ciaries with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance. J Urol 2011; 185: e64.

Fleshner NE, Lucia MS, Egerdie B, et al. Effect of baseline characteristics on relative risk of prostate cancer pro gression in the Reduction by Dutasteride of Clinical Progression Events in Expectant Management (REDEEM) trial. Eur Urol Suppl 2011; 10: 51–2.

Smith A, Coward M, Doak H, et al. Outcomes and complications of follow up biopsies of men on active surveil lance for low risk prostate cancer. J urol Suppl 2009; 181: 608.

Dall’Era MA, Konerty BR, Cowan JE, et al. Active surveillance for the man agement of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008; 112: 2664–70.

Patel HD, Feng Z, Landis P, Trock BJ, Epstein JI, Carter HB. Prostate specific antigen velocity risk count predicts biopsy reclassification for men with very low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2014; 191: 629–37.

Lin DW, Newcomb LF, Brown EC, et al. Urinary TMPRSS2: ERG and PCA3 in active surveillance cohort: result from a baseline analysis in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19: 2442–50.

Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, et al. Active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 597–603.

Klotz L, Zhang LY, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of long term follow up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 126–31.

Whitson JM, Porten SP, Hilton JF, et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy pro gression in patients on active surveil lance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185: 1656–60.

Zhang LV, Loblaw A, Klotz L. Modeling prostate specific antigen kinetics in patients on active surveil lance. J Urol 2006; 176: 1392–7.

Berg KD, Vainer B, Thomsen FB, et al. ERG protein expression in diagnostic specimens is associated with increased risk of progression during active surveil lance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 851–60.

Bul M, van den Berg RCN, Rannikko A, et al. Predictors of unfavourable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance program. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 370–7.

Cary KC, Cowan JE, Sandford M, et al. Predictors of pathologic progression on biopsy among men on active surveil lance for localized prostate cancer: the value of the pattern of surveillance biop sies. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 337–42.

Hirama H, Sugimoto M, Ito K, Shiraishi T, Kakehi Y. The impact of baseline [ 2]proPSA related indices on the prediction of pathological reclassifi cation at 1 year during active surveil lance for low risk prostate cancer: the Japanese multicenter study cohort. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2014; 140: 257–63.

Klotz L. Active surveillance with selective delayed intervation: using nat urally history to guide treatment in good risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2004; 172: S48 50, discussion S51.

Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Williams S, Ayyathural R, Manoharan M. Active surveillance: a reasonable man agement alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami ezperience. BJU Int 2008; 101: 165–9.

Venkitaraman R, Norman A, Woode Amissah R, et al. Predictors of histolog ical disease progression in untreatead, localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2007; 178: 833–7.

Cornu JN, Cancel Tassin G, Egrot C, Caffory C, Haab F, Cussenot O. Urine TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcript integrated with PCA3 score, genotyping, and biological features are correlated to the results of prostatic biopsies in men at risk of prostate cancer. Prostate 2013; 73: 242–9.

Isharwal S, Makarov DV, Carter HB, et al. DNA content in the diagnostic biopsy for benign adjacent and cancer tissue areas predicts the need for treat ment in men T1c prostate cancer under going surveillance in an expectant man agement programme. BJU Int 2010; 105: 329–33.

van der Bergh RCN, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG, et al. Short term out comes of the prospective multicenter “Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance” study. BJU Int 2010; 105: 956-62.

San Francisko IF, Werner L, Regan MM, Garnick MB, Bubley G, DeWolf WC. Risk stratification and vali dation of prostate specific antigen den sity as independent predictor of pro gression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. J Urol 2011; 185: 471–6.

Venkitaraman R, Norman A, Woode Amissah R, et al. Prostate specific anti gen velocity in untreated, localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008; 101: 161–4.

Jhavar S, Bartlett J, Kovacs G, et al.Biopsy microarray study of Ki 67 expression in untreated, localized prostate cancer managed by active sur veillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2009; 12: 143–7.

van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K, et al. Predicting the probability of deffered radical treatment for localized prostate cancer managed by active sur veillance. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 1297–305.

Iremashvili V, Burdick Will J, Soloway MS. Impruving risk stratification in patients with prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a nomogram predicting the risk of biopsy progression. BJU Int 2013; 112: 39–44.

Ng MK, Van As N, Thomas K, et al. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) kinetics in untreated, localized prostate cancer: PSA velocity vs PSA doubling time. BJU Int 2009; 103: 872–6.

Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K, et al. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in pre dicting progression during active sur veillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2001; 185: 477–82.

Yee DS, Adamy A, Pinochet R, et al. The rate of upgrading and upstaging on immediate repeat biopsy in patients eli gible for active surveillance is not relat ed to extend of first biopsy. J Urol 2010; 183:e57.

Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefravy A, Acosta K, Kava B, Manoharan M. Careful selection and close monitoring of low risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 831–5.

Barayan GA, Brimo F, Begin LR, et al. Factors influencing disease progres sion of prostate cancer under active sur veillance: a McGill University Health Center cohort. BJU Int 2014; 114: E99–104.

Welty C, Cowan J, Nguyen H, et al. Factors associated with biopsy progres sion on active surveillance [abstract 19]. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: (Suppl 4).

Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Feng Z, et al. Association of [ 2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveil lance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 188: 1131–6.

Loblaw A, Zhang L, Lam A, et al. Comparing prostate specific antigen triggers for intervention in men with sta ble prostate cancer on active surveil lance. J Urol 2010; 184: 1942–6.

Kakeli Y, Kamoto T, Shiraishi T, et al. Prospective evaluation of selection cri teria for active surveillance in Japanese patients with stage T1cN0M0 prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2008; 38: 122–8.

Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, et al. Prostate specific antigen kinetics during follow up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveil lance program. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 2810–6.

Khatami A, Aus G, Damber JE, Lilia H, Lodding P, Hugosson J. PSA doubling time predicts the outcome after active surveillance in screening detected prostate cancer: results from European randomized study of screen ing for prostate cancer, Sweden sec tion. Int J Cancer 2007; 120: 170–4.

Iremashvili V, Manoharan M, Lokeshwar SD, Rosenberg DL, Pan D, Soloway MS. Comprehensive analyses of post diagnostic prostate specific antigen kinetics as predictor of a prostate cancer progression in active surveillance patients. BJU Int 2013; 111: 396–403.

Krakowsky Y, Loblaw A, Klotz L. Prostate cancer death of men treated with initial active surveillance: clinical and biochemical characteristics. J Urol 2010; 184: 131–5.

Pujara AC, Stephenson AJ, Miocinovich R, Berglund Rk, Jones JS. Prostate specific antigen rises faster in patients with multiple negative biopsies compared to patients followed by active surveillance for low risk prostate can cer. J Urol 2010; 183 (Suppl 4): e831.

Vickers A. Statistical consideration for patient selection and triggers for intervation in active surveillance. In: Klotz L, editor. Active surveillance for locazed prostate cancer: a new para digm for clinical management. New York, NY: Humana Press; 2012.

Loeb S, Han M, Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ. Accuracy of prostate weight estimation by digital rec tal examination versus transrectal ultra sonography. J Urol 2005; 173: 63–5.

Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Ketterman A, et al. Accuracy of PCA3 measurement in predicting short term biopsy progres sion in an active surveillance program. J Urol 2010; 183: 534-8.

Venkitaraman R, Thomas K, Grace P, et al. Baseline urinary phytoe strogen levels and the natural history of untreated, localized prostate cancer in a British population. Int J Biol Markers 2008; 23: 192–7.

Porten SP, Whitson JM, Cowan JE, et al. Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2795–800.