Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Urology Reports
Published in: Current Urology Reports 10/2023

12-07-2023 | Prostate Cancer

Is Active Surveillance Too Active?

Authors: James T Kearns, Brian T Helfand

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 10/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Many prostate cancer active surveillance protocols mandate serial monitoring at defined intervals, including but certainly not limited to serum PSA (often every 6 months), clinic visits, prostate multiparametric MRI, and repeat prostate biopsies. The purpose of this article is to evaluate whether current protocols result in excessive testing of patients on active surveillance.

Recent Findings

Multiple studies have been published in the past several years evaluating the utility of multiparametric MRI, serum biomarkers, and serial prostate biopsy for men on active surveillance. While MRI and serum biomarkers have promise with risk stratification, no studies have demonstrated that periodic prostate biopsy can be safely omitted in active surveillance.

Summary

Active surveillance for prostate cancer is too active for some men with seemingly low-risk cancer. The use of multiple prostate MRIs or additional biomarkers do not always add to the prediction of higher-grade disease on surveillance biopsy.
Literature
1.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA A Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7–33.
2.
Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A, Ganz PA, Leake B, Leach GE, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1995;273(2):129–35.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Northouse L, Hembroff L, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(12):1250–61.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(5):436–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
•• Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Taari K, Busch C, Nordling S, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in prostate cancer - 29-year follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 13;379(24):2319–29. This study remains the strongest evidence for treating clinically significant prostate cancer.
6.
Wilt TJ, Vo TN, Langsetmo L, Dahm P, Wheeler T, Aronson WJ, et al. Radical prostatectomy or observation for clinically localized prostate cancer: Extended follow-up of the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT). Eur Urol. 2020;77(6):713–24.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, Landis P, Wolf S, Trock BJ, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(30):3379–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Klotz L, Zhang L, 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(1):126–31.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Newcomb LF, Thompson IM, Boyer HD, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, multi-institutional canary PASS cohort. J Urol. 2016;195(2):313–20.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, Kakehi Y, Pickles T, Bangma CH, et al. A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: An update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):954–60.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, Shinohara K, Perez N, Greene KL, et al. Extended follow-up and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193(3):807–11.CrossRefPubMed
12.
•• Eastham JA, Auffenberg GB, Barocas DA, Chou R, Crispino T, Davis JW, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO guideline, Part I: Introduction, risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management. Journal of Urology. 2022 Jul;208(1):10–8. The AUA Guidelines are provided by the largest urology professional organization in North America.
13.
14.
Bekelman JE, Rumble RB, Chen RC, Pisansky TM, Finelli A, Feifer A, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline endorsement of an American Urological Association/American Society for Radiation Oncology/Society of Urologic Oncology Guideline. JCO. 2018;36(32):3251–8.CrossRef
15.
16.
Simpkin AJ, Tilling K, Martin RM, Lane JA, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors determining change to radical treatment in active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;67(6):993–1005.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Keegan KA, Dall’Era MA, Durbin-Johnson B, Evans CP. Active surveillance for prostate cancer compared with immediate treatment. Cancer. 2012;118(14):3512–8.
18.
Sathianathen NJ, Konety BR, Alarid-Escudero F, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM, Kuntz KM. Cost-effectiveness analysis of active surveillance strategies for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2019;75(6):910–7.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Roberts MJ, Bennett HY, Harris PN, Holmes M, Grummet J, Naber K, et al. Prostate biopsy-related infection: A systematic review of risk factors, prevention strategies, and management approaches. Urology. 2017;1(104):11–21.CrossRef
20.
van den Bergh RCN, Essink-Bot ML, Roobol MJ, Wolters T, Schröder FH, Bangma CH, et al. Anxiety and distress during active surveillance for early prostate cancer. Cancer. 2009;115(17):3868–78.CrossRefPubMed
21.
• Naha U, Freedland SJ, Abern MR, Moreira DM. The association of cancer-specific anxiety with disease aggressiveness in men on active surveillance of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24(2):335–40.
22.
Kearns JT, Faino AV, Newcomb LF, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, Dash A, et al. Role of surveillance biopsy with no cancer as a prognostic marker for reclassification: Results from the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. European Urology. 2018;73(5):706–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Bloom JB, Hale GR, Gold SA, Rayn KN, Smith C, Mehralivand S, et al. Predicting Gleason group progression for men on prostate cancer active surveillance: Role of a negative confirmatory magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy. J Urol. 2019;201(1):84–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Singh S, Sandhu P, Beckmann K, Santaolalla A, Dewan K, Clovis S, et al. Negative first follow-up prostate biopsy on active surveillance is associated with decreased risk of upgrading, suspicion of progression and converting to active treatment. BJU Int. 2021;128(1):72–8.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Liss MA, Newcomb LF, Zheng Y, Garcia MP, Filson CP, Boyer H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of high grade cancer in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. J Urol. 2020;204(4):701–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
• Klotz L, Loblaw A, Sugar L, Moussa M, Berman DM, Van der Kwast T, et al. Active surveillance magnetic resonance imaging study (ASIST): Results of a randomized multicenter prospective trial. Eur Urol. 2019;75(2):300–9.
27.
Luiting HB, Remmers S, Boevé ER, Valdagni R, Chiu PK, Semjonow A, et al. A multivariable approach using magnetic resonance imaging to avoid a protocol-based prostate biopsy in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer—Data from the international multicenter prospective PRIAS study. European Urology Oncology [Internet]. 2022 Apr 15 [cited 2022 Jul 22]; Available from: https://​www.​sciencedirect.​com/​science/​article/​pii/​S258893112200057​8.
28.
Rajwa P, Pradere B, Quhal F, Mori K, Laukhtina E, Huebner NA, et al. Reliability of serial prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect prostate cancer progression during active surveillance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2021;80(5):549–63.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Hettiarachchi D, Geraghty R, Rice P, Sachdeva A, Nambiar A, Johnson M, et al. Can the use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging during active surveillance of prostate cancer avoid the need for prostate biopsies?—A systematic diagnostic test accuracy review. European Urology Oncology. 2021;4(3):426–36.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Chen RC, Rumble RB, Loblaw DA, Finelli A, Ehdaie B, Cooperberg MR, et al. Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2016;34(18):2182–90.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Kettermann A, et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. JCO. 2010;28(17):2810–6.CrossRef
32.
Whitson JM, Porten SP, Hilton JF, Cowan JE, Perez N, Cooperberg MR, et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1656–60.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, Kakehi Y, Pickles T, Bangma CH, et al. A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: An update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):954–60.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Cooperberg MR, Brooks JD, Faino AV, Newcomb LF, Kearns JT, Carroll PR, et al. Refined analysis of prostate-specific antigen kinetics to predict prostate cancer active surveillance outcomes. Eur Urol. 2018;74(2):211–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Ediz C, Akan S, Temel MC, Yilmaz O. The importance of PSA-density in active surveillance for prostate cancer. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020 Jun 24;92(2).
36.
Tosoian JJ, Loeb S, Feng Z, Isharwal S, Landis P, Elliot DJ, et al. Association of [-2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188(4):1131–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Heidegger I, Klocker H, Pichler R, Pircher A, Prokop W, Steiner E, et al. ProPSA and the Prostate Health Index as predictive markers for aggressiveness in low-risk prostate cancer–Results from an international multicenter study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20(3):271–5.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Schwen ZR, Mamawala M, Tosoian JJ, Druskin SC, Ross AE, Sokoll LJ, et al. Prostate Health Index and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to predict prostate cancer grade reclassification in active surveillance. BJU Int. 2020;126(3):373–8.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Parekh DJ, Punnen S, Sjoberg DD, Asroff SW, Bailen JL, Cochran JS, et al. A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):464–70.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Lin DW, Newcomb LF, Brown MD, Sjoberg DD, Dong Y, Brooks JD, et al. Evaluating the four kallikrein panel of the 4Kscore for prediction of high-grade prostate cancer in men in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. Eur Urol. 2017;72(3):448–54.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Ploussard G, Durand X, Xylinas E, Moutereau S, Radulescu C, Forgue A, et al. Prostate cancer antigen 3 score accurately predicts tumour volume and might help in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2011;59(3):422–9.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Tosoian JJ, Patel HD, Mamawala M, Landis P, Wolf S, Elliott DJ, et al. Longitudinal assessment of urinary PCA3 for predicting prostate cancer grade reclassification in favorable risk men during active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20(3):339–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Newcomb LF, Zheng Y, Faino AV, Bianchi-Frias D, Cooperberg MR, Brown MD, et al. Performance of PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG urinary biomarkers in prediction of biopsy outcome in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS). Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019;22(3):438–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Wenger H, Weiner AB, Razmaria A, Paner GP, Eggener SE. Risk of lymph node metastases in pathological Gleason score ≤ 6 prostate adenocarcinoma: Analysis of institutional and population-based databases. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. 2017;35(1):31.e1-31.e6.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Roobol MJ, Kranse R, Bangma CH, van Leenders AGJLH, Blijenberg BG, van Schaik RHN, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: Results of the Rotterdam section of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. European Urology. 2013 Oct 1;64(4):530–9.
46.
Metadata
Title
Is Active Surveillance Too Active?
Authors
James T Kearns
Brian T Helfand
Publication date
12-07-2023
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Urology Reports / Issue 10/2023
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-023-01177-2