Point: Active Surveillance for Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer

Author: Laurence Klotz MD, FRCSC 1
View More View Less
  • 1 From the University of Toronto, Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario.

Active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer has become increasingly popular in populations where prostate cancer screening is widespread, because of evidence that prostate cancer screening results in the detection of disease that is not clinically significant in many patients (i.e., untreated, would not pose a threat to health). This approach is supported by data showing that patients who fall into the category of clinically insignificant disease can be identified with reasonable accuracy, and that patients who are initially classified as low-risk who reclassify over time as higher-risk and are treated radically are still cured in most cases. Active surveillance means 1) identifying patients who have a low likelihood of disease progression during their lifetime, based on clinical and pathologic features of the disease, and patient age and comorbidity; 2) close monitoring over time; 3) developing reasonable criteria for intervention, which will identify more aggressive disease in a timely fashion and not result in excessive treatment; and 4) meeting the communication challenge to reduce the psychological burden of living with untreated cancer. This article reviews the results of active surveillance, the criteria for patient selection, and the appropriate triggers for intervention.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Correspondence: Dr. Laurence Klotz, MD, FRCSC, University of Toronto, Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue #MG408, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5. E-mail: Laurence.klotz@sunnybrook.ca
  • 1.

    Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Prostate-specific antigen levels in the United States: implications of various definitions for abnormal. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:11321137.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T. Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 2004;54:829.

  • 3.

    D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969974.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Sakr WA, Haas GP, Cassin BF. The frequency of carcinoma and intraepithelial neoplasia of the prostate in young male patients. J Urol 1993;150:379385.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Albertsen P, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005;293:20952101.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:12481253.

  • 7.

    Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993;71:933938.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994;271:368374.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC. Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer 1993;71:35823593.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Irwin MB, Trapasso JG. Identification of insignificant prostate cancers: analysis of preoperative parameters. Urology 1994;44:862867; discussion 867–868.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Cupp MR, Bostwick DG, Myers RP, Oesterling JE. The volume of prostate cancer in the biopsy specimen cannot reliably predict the quantity of cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimen on an individual basis. J Urol 1995;153:15431548.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Goto Y, Ohori M, Arakawa A. Distinguishing clinically important from unimportant prostate cancers before treatment: value of systematic biopsies. J Urol 1996;156:10591063.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Epstein JI, Carmichael M, Partin AW. Is tumor volume an independent predictor of progression following radical prostatectomy? A multivariate analysis of 185 clinical stage B adenocarcinomas of the prostate with 5 years of followup. J Urol 1993;149:14781481.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Epstein JI, Chan DW, Sokoll LJ. Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. J Urol 1998;160:24072411.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM. Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol 2001;166:104109.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Augustin H, Hammerer PG, Graefen M. Insignificant prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimen: time trends and preoperative prediction. Eur Urol 2003;43:455460.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Anast JW, Andriole GL, Bismar TA. Relating biopsy and clinical variables to radical prostatectomy findings: can insignificant and advanced prostate cancer be predicted in a screening population? Urology 2004;64:544550.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Choo R, DeBoer G, Klotz L. PSA doubling time of prostate carcinoma managed with watchful observation alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;50:615620.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Kakehi Y. PSA DT in Japanese active surveillance cohort (48 patients). Jpn J Clin Oncol 2003;33:15.

  • 20.

    Egawa S, Arai Y, Tobisu K. Use of pretreatment prostate-specific antigen doubling time to predict outcome after radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2000;3:269274.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    McLaren DB, McKenzie M, Duncan G. Watchful waiting or watchful progression? Prostate specific antigen doubling times and clinical behavior in patients with early untreated prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1998;82:342348.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    D'Amico AV, Chen MH, Roehl KA, Catalona WJ. Preoperative PSA velocity and the risk of death from prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med 2004;351:125135.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C. Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. J Urol 2002;167:16641669.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom? J Clin Oncol 2005;23:81658169.

  • 25.

    Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;352:19771984.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 79 26 1
PDF Downloads 36 20 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0