Active surveillance of patients with prostate cancer (Literature review)

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

PDF (Українська)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30841/2307-5090.2(57).2016.82957
Keywords:
prostate cancer, active surveillance,

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

С. В. Головко
Клініка урології Національного військово-медичного клінічного центру «Головний військовий клінічний госпіталь» МО України, м. Київ, Ukraine

Abstract

Active surveillance (AS) is an important strategy that avoids overtreatment of prostate cancer (PCa). However, the optimal criteria for the possibility of continuing the Academy of Sciences or the factors of disease progression and the need to move to the beginning of the treatment are still contradictory. We have analyzed the primary data on risk factors as predictors of progression of prostate cancer in patients group AN: the patient's age at the Academy of Sciences, race, family history. In practical application can be a combination of some data, such as multivariate clinical algorithm and prediction of long-term results of the Academy of Sciences and to further improve the implementation of these predictors of the future.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

How to Cite
Головко, С. В. (2016). Active surveillance of patients with prostate cancer (Literature review). Health of Man, (2(57), 68–71. https://doi.org/10.30841/2307-5090.2(57).2016.82957
Issue
No. 2(57) (2016)
Section
Lectures and reviews
Copyright (c) 2020 С. В. Головко

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the first publication of original scientific articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which allows others to distribute work with acknowledgment of authorship and first publication in this journal.

Author Biography

С. В. Головко, Клініка урології Національного військово-медичного клінічного центру «Головний військовий клінічний госпіталь» МО України, м. Київ

Головко Сергей Викторович

References

Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 1079–92.

Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 2012: 366: 981–90.

Roobol MJ, Kerkhof M, Schroder FH, et al. Prostate cancer mortality reduction 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 overdiagnosis 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.

van der Berg RCN, Ahmed HU, Bangma CH, Cooperberg MR, Villers A, Parker CC. Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 1023–31.

Abern MR, Bassett MR, Tsivian M, et al. Race is associated with discontinuation of active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: results from the Duke Prostate Center. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2013; 16: 85–90.

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

Sundi D, Kryvenko O, Epstein J, et al. Reclassification rates are higher among African American men than white men on active surveillance. J Urol Suppl 2014; 191:e598–9.

Cohn JA, Dangle PP, Wang CE, et al. The prognostic significance of perineural 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 mortality among military health care beneficiaries 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 progression 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 followup biopsies of men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. J urol Suppl 2009; 181: 608.

Dall’Era MA, Konerty BR, Cowan JE, et al. Active surveillance for the management 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.

Shapply III WV, Kenfield SA, Kasperzyk JL, et al. Prospective study of determinates and outcomes of deferred treatment or watchful waiting among men with prostate cancer in a nationwide cohort. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4980–5.

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.

Sternberg I, Yu C, Paz G, et al. Predicting progression in patients followed with active surveillance for lowrisk prostate cancer [abstract 38]. Clin Oncol 2014; 32 (Suppl 4).

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

Zhang LV, Loblaw A, Klotz L. Modeling prostate specific antigen kinetics in patients on active surveillance. 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 surveillance 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 surveillance for localized prostate cancer: the value of the pattern of surveillance biopsies. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 337–42.

Eggener SE, Mueller A, Berglund RK, et al. A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2009; 181: 1635–41, discussion 1641.

Hirama H, Sugimoto M, Ito K, Shiraishi T, Kakehi Y. The impact of baseline [-2]proPSA-related indices on the prediction of pathological reclassification at 1 year during active surveillance 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 naturally history to guide treatment in good risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2004; 172: S48–50, discussion S51.

Makarov DV, Isharavi S, Sokoll LJ, et al. Pro-prostate-specific antigen measurements in serum and tissue are associated with treatment necessity among men enrolled in expectant management for prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 7316–21.

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

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

Cornu JN, Cancel-Tassin G, EgrotC, 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 cancertissue areas predicts the need for treatment in men T1c prostate cancer undergoing surveillance in an expectant management programme. BJU Int 2010; 105: 329–33.

van der Bergh RCN, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG, et al. Short-term outcomes 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 validation of prostate specific antigen density as independent predictor of progression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. J Urol 2011; 185: 471–6.

Valery A, Papin G, Moineau MP, et al. Is screen-detected prostate cancer in high risk famimies eligible for active surveillance? Eur Urol Suppl 2010; 9: 196.

Burton AJ, Martin RM, Donovan JL, et al. Associations of lifestyle factors and anthropometric measures with repeat PSA levels during active surveillance/monitoring. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012; 21: 1877–85.

Goh CL, Saunders EJ, Leongamornlert DA, et al. Clinical implications of family history of prostate cancer and genetic risk single nucleotide polymorphism (SGP) profiles in an active surveillance cohort. BJU Int 2013; 112: 666–73.

Mukerji GM, Nariculam J, Hellawell GO, Abel P, Winkler M. Outcome of patients on active surveillance for lowrisk prostate cancer in a cohort of British men with low screening penetrance. BJU Int Suppl 2010; 106: 3.

van den Berg RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Gleason score 7 screen-detected prostate cancers initially managed expectanly: outcomes in 50 men. BJU Int 2009; 103: 1472–7.

Venkitaraman R, Norman A, Woode-Amissah R, et al. Prostate-specific antigen 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 surveillance. 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 surveillance. 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.

Iremashvili V, Manoharan M, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS. Biopsy features associated with prostate cancer progressionin active surveillance patients: comparision of three statistical models. BJU Int 2013; 111: 574–9.

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 predicting progression during active surveillance 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 eligible for active surveillance is not related to extend of first biopsy. J Urol 2010; 183:e57.

Fromont G, Irani J, Ruffon A, et al. Interest of early confirmatory biopsies and centralized pathological review to select prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol Suppl 2011; 10: 315.

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.

Umbehr MH, Platz EA, Peskoe SB, et al. Serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration is positively associated with rate of disease reclassification on subsequent active surveillance prostate biopsy in men with low PSA density. BJU Int 2014; 113: 561–7.

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

Welty C, Cowan J, Nguyen H, et al. Factors associated with biopsy progression 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 surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 188: 1131–6.

Komisarenko M, Wong LM, Richard P, et al. Patients that demonstrate Gleason 6 volume progression on active surveillance have a substantially greater risk of grade progression on further follow-up. J Urol 2014; 191: e720.