Elsevier

European Urology

Volume 74, Issue 3, September 2018, Pages 357-368
European Urology

Position Paper
Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: The European Association of Urology Position in 2018

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.008Get rights and content

Abstract

Active surveillance (AS) represents a well-recognized management option for many patients with low- and very low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). AS aims to reduce overtreatment whilst ensuring curative treatment for those in whom it is needed, without losing the window of curability. While long-term series have confirmed the safety of AS in carefully selected patients, this has resulted in new clinical questions. Can the inclusion criteria be expanded? Is there a role for biomarkers and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at diagnosis or during AS? What is the optimal follow-up schedule as well as the most meaningful trigger for definitive treatment? These questions, together with increasingly adopted heterogeneous protocols in AS, have prompted the European Association of Urology to produce a position paper corroborated by a summary of the scientific background on AS.

Patient summary

Active surveillance (AS) is becoming a widely adopted strategy for patients affected by low-risk prostate cancer. While a formal systematic review on the topic will soon be available, the European Association of Urology has produced specific statements for different open questions on AS.

Introduction

Approximately 45% of men with screening-detected localized prostate cancer (PCa) are candidates for deferred treatment [1]. The Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer showed that a single PSA screening intervention increased the detection of low-risk PCa [2]. In this context, active surveillance (AS) represents a well-recognized option for the initial management of selected patients with low- and very low-risk PCa. This approach is increasingly used in this setting [3], [4], with the aims of reducing possible overtreatment and achieving curative treatment for those with progressive disease without losing the window of curability [5]. Patients remain under close surveillance, and treatment is prompted by predefined thresholds indicative of potentially life-threatening but still curable disease in men with adequate life expectancy. Current data supporting the role of AS are derived from ongoing prospective or retrospective cohorts. No formal randomized controlled trial is available comparing AS to standard treatment, although a randomized study of less intensive active monitoring showed no difference in overall survival (OS) at 10 yr when compared to active treatment mainly in men with low- and intermediate-risk PCa [6]. The largest published AS cohort coupled with the longest follow-up included 993 patients with low- or intermediate-risk PCa [7]. This prospective cohort enrolled men with clinical stage T1 or T2a and PSA ≤10 ng/ml, age ≤70 yr, and a Gleason score ≤6 or age >70 yr with a Gleason score of ≤3 + 4. Interestingly, men with intermediate-risk disease represented approximately 20% of the entire cohort of study. Moreover, neither multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI; not available at the time of study initiation) nor extensive biopsy sampling were considered in the study. After a median follow-up of 6.4 yr, the 10- and 15-yr OS were 80% and 62%, respectively, and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates were 98.1% and 94.3%, respectively. Radical treatment was received by 27% of this population, prompted by a PSA doubling time <3 yr (43.5%), a Gleason score progression on repeat biopsies (35%), and patient preference (6%). Thirty men (3%) developed metastases during follow-up: 2% of those initially classified as Gleason 6 as compared to 9.7% if initially Gleason 7 [8]. Several other protocols have investigated AS in organ-confined disease [9], including the PRIAS study which represents the largest prospectively enrolled cohort of men initially managed with AS [10]. Although a decline in adherence has been observed in real life [11], AS showed to be safe and able to reduce the extent of overtreatment in low-risk PCa, provided accurate patient selection. Given such favorable outcomes, several studies focused on how to expand indications and to increase adherence to AS protocols [12], [13]. This has contributed to an increasing number of studies and recommendations [14], [15], sometimes based on single institution expertise rather than on strong, large evidence. In particular, the role of imaging and biomarkers during AS is not yet standardized and different protocols have been implemented with these approaches at different stages of AS. Some studies used mp-MRI to confirm eligibility for AS [16], [17], others included imaging to expand inclusion criteria for AS and to reduce misclassification by using fusion biopsies [18], [19], or even to replace the key role of prostate biopsy during follow-up [20]. In addition to such recent implementations, there are still considerable variations among studies regarding patient selection, follow-up schedule, the use of confirmatory or repeat biopsy and what should trigger active treatment. Moreover, existing guidelines regarding AS for PCa vary widely [21]. These differences not only make comparison between these studies difficult but also contribute to highly heterogeneous protocols for AS, which is confusing to both physicians and patients. All these reasons have prompted the European Association of Urology (EAU) to produce a position paper on AS, as done previously for other topics [22], [23], [24].

Section snippets

Statement

Include all men with low-risk PCa for AS using a standardized prospective protocol. Men with longer life expectancy (ie, >20 yr) should be properly counseled about the lack of very long-term data of AS.

Scientific background

There are several long-term prospective AS cohorts that have been reported, with different inclusion criteria and different protocols [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. These different selection criteria included men fit for curative treatment and a life expectancy of at least 10 yr with low/very

Statement

Report the number of cores submitted for pathological assessment and the number of positive cores per side. Report the linear percentage or length (in mm) of involvement by carcinoma in the single core with the greatest amount of tumor. Finally, consider central pathological review of biopsy specimens when commencing long-term conservative treatments.

Scientific background

Accurate histopathologic assessment at biopsy is crucial for the selection of men suitable for AS. According to a recent consensus meeting, the

Use and timing of MRI in active surveillance

mp-MRI can be used to detect clinically significant PCa in men on AS in order to improve patient selection and to optimize cancer diagnosis and timing for intervention. This can be done in three settings during AS:

  • 1.

    mp-MRI at the time of initial diagnosis.

  • 2.

    mp-MRI before confirmatory biopsy.

  • 3.

    mp-MRI during follow-up.

Statement

The follow-up strategy still relies mainly on clinical and biopsy assessment. It is based on serial digital rectal examination (at least once a year), PSA (at least once every 6 mo), and repeated biopsy (at a minimum interval of 3–5 yr). mp-MRI cannot be used as a stand-alone tool to trigger follow-up biopsies.

Scientific background

Follow-up schedules of the largest AS series are reported in Table 2. Based on two single-center studies [50], [52], not all patients with progression/reclassification at biopsy had

Statement

Despite the evidence that some men with Gleason 3 + 4 may have favorable final pathology and good outcomes on AS, it is clear that these men have an increased risk of clinical progression and the development of metastasis when monitored using an AS protocol. If men with limited Gleason 3 + 4 at biopsy decide to undergo AS, this should be done within a standardized protocol where patients are correctly informed about the lack of robust data and the increased risk of progression.

Scientific background

Although most

Statement

After appropriate risk stratification, patients should be counseled that outcomes of AS appear similar between younger and older patients, albeit that younger men need longer follow-up. Therefore, young age is not a preclusion from AS. However, young patient (<55 yr) with long life expectancy (ie, >20 yr) need to be counseled regarding the lack of robust data at very long-term follow-up, although they may also have more to gain from delaying radical therapy for many years.

Scientific background

Overtreatment of

Statement

Given the lack of prospective data on AS outcomes stratified according to race, patient race should not modify eligibility to and follow-up during AS.

Scientific background

Previous studies have reported higher rate of occult co-existent cancer in low-risk African-American patients as well as higher rates of biochemical recurrence after surgery [66], [67]. However, one large recent study of the SEARCH database including 40% African-American men with low-risk cancer showed no difference in pathological upstaging or

Statement

Biological markers, including PSA isoforms, urine PCA3, TMPRSS2-ERG, 4K score, or GPS appear promising to guide care of men with AS. However, they have not yet been prospectively robustly tested in the AS setting. Therefore, while waiting for further data and even though some men may benefit for assessment of these biomarkers, their use cannot be currently routinely recommended in AS.

[–2]proPSA and Prostate Health Index

[–2]proPSA and Prostate Health Index, measured at diagnosis or during AS, have discriminatory power for the

Statement

Patient distress should not necessarily trigger radical treatment. Men with favorable-risk PCa suitable for AS should be properly reassured about the safety of this approach. Therefore, psycho-oncological support in men on AS is encouraged to minimize patient distress and optimize adherence to AS.

Scientific background

Patient preference accounts for approximately 6% of reasons for discontinuing surveillance [7]. Moreover, patient preference is related to non-adherence, which in the end may lead to discontinuation.

Statement

The decision to deliver active treatment should be based on the deterioration (ie, disease progression) of the prior inclusion criteria (Table 1). A worsening in mp-MRI features such as increased volume of the index lesion, appearance of new lesions or increased PIRADS score at a given lesion do not represent “per se” trigger for intervention. Rather, these parameters should be used to optimize timing, targeting, and extent of biopsies. When the life expectancy decreases, the decision to remain

Conclusions

AS should be considered for all men with low-risk PCa, fit for curative treatment, and willing to adhere to AS protocols, including younger men who are provided accurate assessment to exclude misclassification of higher-grade disease. However, men with very long life expectancy should be counseled about the lack of very long-term data of AS. Consider central pathological review of the biopsy specimens in patients within AS programs, especially when recommendations for reporting criteria are not

References (86)

  • M.S. Soloway et al.

    Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment

    Eur Urol

    (2010)
  • I.G. Schoots et al.

    Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review

    Eur Urol

    (2015)
  • H.U. Ahmed et al.

    Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study

    Lancet

    (2017)
  • M.M. Siddiqui et al.

    Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound–fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy

    Eur Urol

    (2013)
  • P. Recabal et al.

    The efficacy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in risk classification for patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance

    J Urol

    (2016)
  • M. Kamrava et al.

    Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer improves Gleason score assessment in favorable risk prostate cancer

    Pract Radiat Oncol

    (2015)
  • A. Ouzzane et al.

    Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy improves selection of patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low risk prostate cancer based on systematic biopsies

    J Urol

    (2015)
  • T.M. Ma et al.

    The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy in active surveillance

    Eur Urol

    (2017)
  • N. Nassiri et al.

    Targeted biopsy to detect Gleason score upgrading during active surveillance for men with low versus intermediate risk prostate cancer

    J Urol

    (2017)
  • E.R. Felker et al.

    Serial magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: incremental value

    J Urol

    (2016)
  • C.M. Moore et al.

    Reporting magnetic resonance imaging in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: The PRECISE recommendations-a report of a European School of Oncology task force

    Eur Urol

    (2017)
  • H.B. Musunuru et al.

    Active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer: survival outcomes in the Sunnybrook experience

    J Urol

    (2016)
  • E.D. Selvadurai et al.

    Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer

    Eur Urol

    (2013)
  • L.F. Newcomb et al.

    Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, multi-institutional canary PASS cohort

    J Urol

    (2016)
  • J.-P. Droz et al.

    Management of prostate cancer in elderly patients: recommendations of a task force of the international society of geriatric oncology

    Eur Urol

    (2017)
  • C.A. Bellera et al.

    Screening older cancer patients: first evaluation of the G-8 geriatric screening tool

    Ann Oncol

    (2012)
  • D. Sundi et al.

    Reclassification rates are higher among African American men than Caucasians on active surveillance

    Urology

    (2015)
  • M. Jalloh et al.

    Racial variation in prostate cancer upgrading and upstaging among men with low-risk clinical characteristics

    Eur Urol

    (2015)
  • M.S. Leapman et al.

    Pathological and biochemical outcomes among African-American and Caucasian men with low risk prostate cancer in the SEARCH database: implications for active surveillance candidacy

    J Urol

    (2016)
  • D. Sundi et al.

    Pathological examination of radical prostatectomy specimens in men with very low risk disease at biopsy reveals distinct zonal distribution of cancer in black American men

    J Urol

    (2014)
  • J.J. Tosoian 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

    J Urol

    (2012)
  • D.W. Lin 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)
  • E.A. Klein et al.

    Decipher genomic classifier measured on prostate biopsy predicts metastasis risk

    Urology

    (2016)
  • E.A. Klein et al.

    A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling

    Eur Urol

    (2014)
  • N.D. Shore et al.

    Impact of the cell cycle progression test on physician and patient treatment selection for localized prostate cancer

    J Urol

    (2016)
  • N. Mottet et al.

    EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent

    Eur Urol

    (2017)
  • F.B. Thomsen et al.

    Association between PSA kinetics and cancer-specific mortality in patients with localised prostate cancer: analysis of the placebo arm of the SPCG-6 study

    Ann Oncol

    (2016)
  • P.C. Albertsen

    Observational studies and the natural history of screen-detected prostate cancer

    Curr Opin Urol

    (2015)
  • R.M. Martin et al.

    Effect of a low-intensity PSA-based screening intervention on prostate cancer mortality: the CAP randomized clinical trial

    Jama

    (2018)
  • M.R. Cooperberg et al.

    Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990-2013

    Jama

    (2015)
  • S. Loeb et al.

    Uptake of active surveillance for very-low-risk prostate cancer in Sweden

    JAMA Oncol

    (2017)
  • C.J. Welty et al.

    Meaningful end points and outcomes in men on active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer

    Curr Opin Urol

    (2014)
  • F.C. Hamdy et al.

    10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

    N Engl J Med

    (2016)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text