Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Use, Outcomes, Imaging, and Diagnostic Tools.

Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a standard management option for men with very low-risk and low-risk prostate cancer, and contemporary data indicate that use of AS is increasing in the United States and abroad. In the favorable-risk population, reports from multiple prospective cohorts indicate a less than 1% likelihood of metastatic disease and prostate cancer-specific mortality over intermediate-term follow-up (median 5-6 years). Higher-risk men participating in AS appear to be at increased risk of adverse outcomes, but these populations have not been adequately studied to this point. Although monitoring on AS largely relies on serial prostate biopsy, a procedure associated with considerable morbidity, there is a need for improved diagnostic tools for patient selection and monitoring. Revisions from the 2014 International Society of Urologic Pathology consensus conference have yielded a more intuitive reporting system and detailed reporting of low-intermediate grade tumors, which should facilitate the practice of AS. Meanwhile, emerging modalities such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and tissue-based molecular testing have shown prognostic value in some populations. At this time, however, these instruments have not been sufficiently studied to consider their routine, standardized use in the AS setting. Future studies should seek to identify those platforms most informative in the AS population and propose a strategy by which promising diagnostic tools can be safely and efficiently incorporated into clinical practice.

[1]  D. Gleason,et al.  PREDICTION OF PROGNOSIS FOR PROSTATIC ADENOCARCINOMA BY COMBINED HISTOLOGICAL GRADING AND CLINICAL STAGING , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[2]  M. Roobol,et al.  Complications after prostate biopsies in men on active surveillance and its effects on receiving further biopsies in the Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study , 2016, BJU international.

[3]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer , 2016, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[4]  Pär Stattin,et al.  Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason Grade Groups in a Nationwide Population-based Cohort. , 2016, European urology.

[5]  Jianbo Li,et al.  Decipher Genomic Classifier Measured on Prostate Biopsy Predicts Metastasis Risk. , 2016, Urology.

[6]  J. Tosoian,et al.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice , 2016, Nature Reviews Urology.

[7]  B. Trock,et al.  Pathologic Outcomes in Favorable-risk Prostate Cancer: Comparative Analysis of Men Electing Active Surveillance and Immediate Surgery. , 2016, European urology.

[8]  L. Egevad,et al.  A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. , 2016, European urology.

[9]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Which, when and why? Rational use of tissue-based molecular testing in localized prostate cancer , 2015, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease.

[10]  B. Delahunt,et al.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[11]  Christopher J Kane,et al.  Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2016. , 2016, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[12]  H. Hricak,et al.  Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference , 2016, European Radiology.

[13]  F. Gallagher,et al.  Investigating the ability of multiparametric MRI to exclude significant prostate cancer prior to transperineal biopsy. , 2015, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.

[14]  P. Carroll,et al.  Immediate versus delayed radical prostatectomy: updated outcomes following active surveillance of prostate cancer. , 2015, European urology.

[15]  Mufaddal Mamawala,et al.  Intermediate and Longer-Term Outcomes From a Prospective Active-Surveillance Program for Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  Hartwig Huland,et al.  Changing Trends in Surgical Management of Prostate Cancer: The End of Overtreatment? , 2015, European urology.

[17]  S. Naito,et al.  Current use of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: A nationwide survey in Japan , 2015, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[18]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Trends in Management for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer, 1990-2013. , 2015, JAMA.

[19]  E. Klein,et al.  Applying precision medicine to the active surveillance of prostate cancer , 2015, Cancer.

[20]  P. Febbo,et al.  The Impact of a Biopsy Based 17‐Gene Genomic Prostate Score on Treatment Recommendations in Men with Newly Diagnosed Clinically Prostate Cancer Who are Candidates for Active Surveillance , 2015, Urology practice.

[21]  Nan Zhang,et al.  A Biopsy-based 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score Predicts Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy and Adverse Surgical Pathology in a Racially Diverse Population of Men with Clinically Low- and Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer. , 2015, European urology.

[22]  J. Epstein,et al.  Re: Nationwide prevalence of lymph node metastases in Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 prostate cancer. , 2015, Pathology.

[23]  P. Choyke,et al.  Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. , 2015, Urologic oncology.

[24]  Michael Laviolette,et al.  Trends in initial management of prostate cancer in New Hampshire , 2015, Cancer Causes & Control.

[25]  N. Lawrentschuk,et al.  The current use of active surveillance in an Australian cohort of men: a pattern of care analysis from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry , 2015, BJU international.

[26]  M. Loda,et al.  Development and Clinical Validation of an In Situ Biopsy-Based Multimarker Assay for Risk Stratification in Prostate Cancer , 2015, Clinical Cancer Research.

[27]  Kirsten L. Greene,et al.  Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[28]  A. D. De Marzo,et al.  Diagnostic challenges of clonal heterogeneity in prostate cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[29]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. , 2015, JAMA.

[30]  Danny Vesprini,et al.  Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[31]  J. Hicks,et al.  PTEN Loss is Associated with Upgrading of Prostate Cancer from Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy , 2014, Modern Pathology.

[32]  C. Catalano,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. , 2015, Urologic oncology.

[33]  David C. Miller,et al.  Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer. , 2015, European urology.

[34]  William L. Welbourn,et al.  PTEN loss in biopsy tissue predicts poor clinical outcomes in prostate cancer , 2014, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[35]  Y. Pawitan,et al.  Operator Dependent Choice of Prostate Cancer Biopsy Has Limited Impact on a Gene Signature Analysis for the Highly Expressed Genes IGFBP3 and F3 in Prostate Cancer Epithelial Cells , 2014, PloS one.

[36]  P. Febbo,et al.  A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. , 2014, European urology.

[37]  Lawrence D. True,et al.  The critical role of the pathologist in determining eligibility for active surveillance as a management option in patients with prostate cancer: consensus statement with recommendations supported by the College of American Pathologists, International Society of Urological Pathology, Association of D , 2014, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[38]  William L. Welbourn,et al.  Prognostic utility of the cell cycle progression score generated from biopsy in men treated with prostatectomy. , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[39]  M. Loda,et al.  Identification of proteomic biomarkers predicting prostate cancer aggressiveness and lethality despite biopsy-sampling error , 2014, British Journal of Cancer.

[40]  David L Rimm,et al.  Automated quantitative multiplex immunofluorescence in situ imaging identifies phospho-S6 and phospho-PRAS40 as predictive protein biomarkers for prostate cancer lethality , 2014, Proteome Science.

[41]  F. Feng,et al.  Genomic Prostate Cancer Classifier Predicts Biochemical Failure and Metastases in Patients After Postoperative Radiation Therapy , 2014, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[42]  John T. Wei,et al.  Variation in use of active surveillance among men undergoing expectant treatment for early stage prostate cancer. , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[43]  Wei Zhou,et al.  Global transcriptome analysis of formalin-fixed prostate cancer specimens identifies biomarkers of disease recurrence. , 2014, Cancer research.

[44]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. , 2014, European urology.

[45]  L. Marks,et al.  Screening and detection advances in magnetic resonance image-guided prostate biopsy. , 2014, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[46]  Sudhir Srivastava,et al.  Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change. , 2014, The Lancet. Oncology.

[47]  William L. Welbourn,et al.  Clinical utility of a biopsy-based cell cycle gene expression assay in localized prostate cancer , 2014, Current medical research and opinion.

[48]  E. Crawford,et al.  Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry , 2014, Current medical research and opinion.

[49]  Hodgkin Lymphoma NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines , 2014 .

[50]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. , 2014, European urology.

[51]  Kazuto Ito,et al.  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 , 2013, Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.

[52]  Anirban P. Mitra,et al.  Validation of a genomic classifier that predicts metastasis following radical prostatectomy in an at risk patient population. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[53]  D. Dearnaley,et al.  Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. , 2013, European urology.

[54]  Yair Lotan,et al.  Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. , 2013, European urology.

[55]  P. Stattin,et al.  Population based study of use and determinants of active surveillance and watchful waiting for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[56]  D. Watson,et al.  Analytical validation of the Oncotype DX prostate cancer assay – a clinical RT-PCR assay optimized for prostate needle biopsies , 2013, BMC Genomics.

[57]  Jun Luo,et al.  The mutational landscape of prostate cancer. , 2013, European urology.

[58]  B. Trock,et al.  Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[59]  P. Choyke,et al.  Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer , 2013, Cancer.

[60]  William L. Welbourn,et al.  Prognostic utility of cell cycle progression score in men with prostate cancer after primary external beam radiation therapy. , 2013, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[61]  J. Trachtenberg,et al.  Oncologic outcomes following radical prostatectomy in the active surveillance era. , 2013, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.

[62]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? , 2013, Radiology.

[63]  J. Lindberg,et al.  Genetic markers associated with early cancer‐specific mortality following prostatectomy , 2013, Cancer.

[64]  Anirban P. Mitra,et al.  Discovery and Validation of a Prostate Cancer Genomic Classifier that Predicts Early Metastasis Following Radical Prostatectomy , 2013, PloS one.

[65]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Prognostic value of PTEN loss in men with conservatively managed localised prostate cancer , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

[66]  J. Hugosson,et al.  Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. , 2013, European urology.

[67]  Jennifer L. Beebe-Dimmer,et al.  Prognostic Gleason grade grouping : data based on the modified Gleason scoring system , 2013 .

[68]  Eric A Singer,et al.  Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer? , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[69]  H. Carter Active surveillance for prostate cancer: an underutilized opportunity for reducing harm. , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[70]  M. Litwin,et al.  Quality of life in men undergoing active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[71]  B. Trock,et al.  Association of [-2]proPSA with biopsy reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[72]  Janet E Cowan,et al.  Do Adenocarcinomas of the Prostate With Gleason Score (GS)⩽6 Have the Potential to Metastasize to Lymph Nodes? , 2012, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[73]  C. Plass,et al.  Genomic deletion of PTEN is associated with tumor progression and early PSA recurrence in ERG fusion-positive and fusion-negative prostate cancer. , 2012, The American journal of pathology.

[74]  M. Kattan,et al.  Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer , 2012, BJU international.

[75]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Prognostic value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort , 2012, British Journal of Cancer.

[76]  Jianfeng Xu,et al.  PTEN Protein Loss by Immunostaining: Analytic Validation and Prognostic Indicator for a High Risk Surgical Cohort of Prostate Cancer Patients , 2011, Clinical Cancer Research.

[77]  Yousef Mazaheri,et al.  Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. , 2011, Radiology.

[78]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Prognostic value of an RNA expression signature derived from cell cycle proliferation genes in patients with prostate cancer: a retrospective study. , 2011, The Lancet. Oncology.

[79]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? , 2011, Radiology.

[80]  Kirsten L. Greene,et al.  Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[81]  K. Markou,et al.  National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Head and Neck Cancers NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology . 2010. , 2011 .

[82]  Matthew R Cooperberg,et al.  Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[83]  S. Raab A Contemporary Study Correlating Prostate Needle Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score , 2009 .

[84]  L. Egevad,et al.  Correlation of modified Gleason grading of prostate carcinoma with age, serum prostate specific antigen and tumor extent in needle biopsy specimens. , 2008, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[85]  J. Epstein,et al.  A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[86]  Matthew R Cooperberg,et al.  Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[87]  M. Kattan,et al.  The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: an initial analysis , 2007, BJU international.

[88]  L. Egevad,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[89]  K. Grigor,et al.  Trends in reporting Gleason score 1991 to 2001: changes in the pathologist's practice. , 2005, European urology.

[90]  M. Crundwell Pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs , 2004 .

[91]  C. Downes,et al.  PTEN function: how normal cells control it and tumour cells lose it. , 2004, The Biochemical journal.

[92]  Steven Piantadosi,et al.  Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[93]  Neil Fleshner,et al.  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. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[94]  P. Walsh,et al.  Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[95]  S. Piantadosi,et al.  Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. , 1997, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[96]  J. McNeal,et al.  Spread of adenocarcinoma within prostatic ducts and acini. Morphologic and clinical correlations. , 1996, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[97]  D. Gleason,et al.  Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. , 1992, Human pathology.

[98]  D. Gleason,et al.  Histologic Grading and Staging of Prostatic Carcinoma , 1981 .