Prostate Cancer Death of Men Treated With Initial Active Surveillance: Clinical and Biochemical Characteristics

Focal High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound vs. Active Surveillance for ISUP Grade 1 Prostate Cancer: Medium-Term Results of a Matched-Pair Comparison

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

Only 1 randomized controlled trial has compared focal therapy and active surveillance (AS) for the low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We investigated whether focal HIFU (fHIFU) yields oncologic advantages over AS for low-risk PCa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included 2 non-randomized prospective series of 132 (fHIFU) and 421 (AS) consecutive patients diagnosed with ISUP 1 PCa between 2008 and 2018. A matched pair analysis was performed to decrease potential bias. Study main outcomes were freedom from radical treatment (RT) or androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), treatment-free survival (TFS), time to metastasis, and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Median fHIFU follow-up was 50 months (interquartile range, 29-84 months). Among matched variables, no major differences were recorded except for AS having more suspicious digital rectal examination findings (P = .0074) and recent enrollment year (P = .0005). Five-year intervention-free survival from RT or ADT was higher for the fHIFU cohort (67.4% vs. 53.8%; P = .0158). Time to treatment was approximately 10 months shorter for AS than for fHIFU (time to RT, P = .0363; time to RT or ADT, P = .0156; time to any treatment, P = .0319). No differences were found in any-TFS (fHIFU, 61.4% vs. AS, 53.8%; P = .2635), OS (fHIFU, 97% vs. AS, 97%; P = .9237), or metastasis (n = 0 in fHIFU and n = 2 in AS; P = .4981). Major complications (≥ Clavien 3) were rare (n = 4), although 36.4% of men experienced complications. No relevant changes were noted in continence (P = .3949).

CONCLUSION

At a 4-year median follow-up, fHIFU for mainly low-risk PCa (ISUP grade 1) is safe, may decrease the need for radical treatment or ADT and may allow longer time to treatment compared to AS. Nonetheless, no advantages are seen in PCa progression and/or death (OS).

The clinical utility of transperineal template-guided saturation prostate biopsy for risk stratification after transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy

Purpose

To investigate the clinical utility of transperineal template-guided saturation prostate biopsy (TPB) for risk stratification after transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 155 patients who underwent TPB after previously negative results on TRUS-guided biopsy (n=58) or who were candidates for active surveillance (n=97) fulfilling the PRIAS criteria between May 2017 and November 2018. The patients' clinicopathologic data were reviewed, and the detection of clinically significant cancer (CSC) and upgrading of Gleason grade were identified.

Results

The patients' median age and pre-TPB prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value were 65.0 years and 5.74 ng/mL, respectively. A median of 36 biopsy cores was obtained in each patient, with a median TPB core density of 0.88 cores/cm³. Of the 58 males with a previous negative result on TRUS-guided biopsy, prostate cancer (PCa) was detected in 17 males (29.3%), including 8 with CSC. Of the 97 patient candidates for active surveillance, upgrading of the Gleason grade was identified in 31 males (32.0%), 20 with a Gleason grade of 7 (3+4), 6 with a Gleason grade of 7 (4+3), and 5 with a Gleason grade of 8 (4+4). The overall complication rate was 14.8% (23/155), and there were no Clavien–Dindo grade 3 to 5 complications.

Conclusions

TPB helps to stratify the risk of PCa that was previously missed or underdiagnosed by TRUS-guided biopsy. TPB might be used as a diagnostic tool to determine risk classification and to help counsel patients with regard to treatment decisions.

Immediate versus delayed prostatectomy and the fate of patients who progress to a higher risk disease on active surveillance

INTRODUCTION

Oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients progressing on active surveillance (AS) are debated. We compared outcomes of AS eligible patients undergoing RP immediately after diagnosis with those doing so after delay or disease progression on AS.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2014, 961 patients were AS eligible as per EAU criteria. RP within 6 months of diagnosis (IRP) or beyond (DRP), RP without AS (DRPa) and AS patients progressing to RP (DRPb) were compared. Baseline PSA, clinical and biopsy characteristics were noted. Oncological outcomes included adverse pathology in RP specimen and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Matched pair analysis was done between DRPb and GS7 patients undergoing immediate RP (GS7IRP).

RESULTS

IRP, DRP, DRPa and DRPb had 820 (85%), 141 (15%), 118 (12.24%) and 23 (2.7%) patients respectively. IRP, DRPa and DRPb underwent RP at a median of 3, 9 and 19 months after diagnosis respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable. DRP vs. IRP had earlier median time (31 vs. 43 months; p<.001) and higher rate of progression to BCR (7.6 vs. 3.9%;p=.045). DRPb showed higher BCR (19 vs. 5%;p=.021) with earlier median time to BCR, compared to IRP and DRPa (p=.038). There was no difference in adverse pathology and BCR rates, but time to BCR was significantly lesser in DRPb (49 vs. 6 months;p<.001), compared to GS7IRP.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients progressing on AS had worst oncological outcomes. RP for GS7 progression and matched pair of GS7 patients had similar outcomes. Worse oncological outcomes in AS progressors cannot be explained by a mere delay in RP.

Utility of early transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy for risk stratification in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accuracy and utility of routine multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy (TPB) after enrolment in active surveillance (AS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From April 2012 to December 2016 consecutive men from our single institution, diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy, were offered further staging with early mpMRI and TPB within 12 months of diagnosis. Data were collected prospectively. Eligibility criteria comprised: age ≤77 years; Gleason score ≤3 + 4; clinical stage T1-T2; PSA ≤15 ng/mL; and <50% positive biopsy cores.

RESULTS

A total of 208 men were enrolled, including 196 with Gleason score 3 + 3 and 12 with Gleason score 3 + 4 disease. The median (range) number of TPB cores was 50 (17-161), with a mean TPB core density of 1.2 cores/cm³ prostate volume. A total of 83 men (39.9%) underwent histopathological upgrading after TPB, including 76 men (38.8%) with Gleason score 3 + 3 disease and seven men (58.3%) with Gleason score 3 + 4 disease. Of these, 26 (31.3%) were found to harbour primary pattern Gleason grade ≥4 disease. In all, 24 (28.9%) upgraded cases had Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score 1 or 2 lesions on mpMRI, including five men with Gleason score ≥4 + 3 disease. Of these, 14 (58.3%) had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density of ≥0.15, including four out of the five men with Gleason ≥4 + 3 disease. Overall there was a change in prostate cancer management in 77 men (37.0%) after TPB.

CONCLUSIONS

Early TPB during AS is associated with significant upgrading and a change in treatment plan in over a third of men. If TPB was omitted in men with a PI-RADS score <3 and a PSA density <0.15, 12% of those harbouring more significant disease would have been misclassified.

De novo steroid biosynthesis in human prostate cell lines and biopsies

BACKGROUND

Intratumoral androgen formation may be a factor in the development of prostate cancer (PCa), particularly castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). To evaluate the ability of the human prostate to synthesize de novo steroids, we examined the expression of key enzymes and proteins involved in steroid biosynthesis and metabolism.

METHODS

Using TissueScan™ Cancer qPCR Arrays and quantitative RT-PCR, we performed comparative gene expression analyses between various prostate cell lines and biopsies, including normal, hyperplastic, cancerous, and androgen-deprived prostate cells lines, as well as normal, benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), PCa, and CRPC human specimens. These studies were complemented with steroid biosynthesis studies in normal and BPH cells.

RESULTS

Normal human prostate WPMY-1 and WPE1-NA22, benign prostate hyperplasia BPH-1, and cancer PC-3, LNCaP, and VCaP cell lines, as well as normal, BPH, PCa, and CRPC specimens, were used. Although all cell lines express mRNA encoding for hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase (HMGCR), the mitochondrial translocator protein TSPO and cholesterol side chain cleavage enzyme CYP11A1 were only observed in WPMY-1, BPH-1, and LNCaP cells. HSD3B1, HSD3B2, and CYP17A1 are involved in androgen formation and were not found in most cell lines. WPE1-NA22 and BPH-1 cells were unable to synthesize de novo steroids from mevalonate. Moreover, androgen-deprived cells did not have alterations in the expression of enzymes that could lead to de novo steroid formation. All prostate specimens expressed TSPO and CYP11A1. HSD3B1/2, CYP17A1, HSD17B5, and CYP19A1 mRNA expression was distinct to the profile observed in cells lines. The majority of BPH (90.9%) and PCa (83.1%) specimens contained CYP17A1, compared to control (normal) specimens (46.7%). BPH (82%), PCa (59%), normal (40%), and CRPC (34%) specimens expressed the four key enzymes that metabolize cholesterol to androgens.

CONCLUSION

These studies question the use of prostate cell lines to study steroid biosynthesis and demonstrate that human prostate samples contain transcripts encoding for key steroidogenic enzymes and proteins indicating that they have the potential to synthesize de novo steroids. We propose CYP17A1 as a candidate enzyme that can be used for patient stratification and treatment in BPH and PCa.

Current status of active surveillance in prostate cancer

Active surveillance (AS) is a management strategy involving close monitoring the course of disease with the expectation to intervene if the cancer progress, in a super-selected group of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Determining AS candidates should be based on careful individualized weighing of numerous factors: life expectancy, general health condition, disease characteristics, potential side effects of treatment, and patient preference. Several protocols have been developed to determine insignificant PCa for choosing ideal AS candidates. Results regarding disease reclassification during AS have been also reported. In an effort to enhance accuracy during selection of AS candidate, there were several reports on using magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of insignificant PCa. Currently, there is an urgent need for further clinical studies regarding the criteria for recommending AS, the criteria for reclassification on AS, and the schedule for AS. Considering the racial differences in behavior of PCa between Western and Asian populations, more stringent AS protocols for Asian patients should be established from additional, well-designed, large clinical studies.

Metastatic Prostate Cancer in Men Initially Treated with Active Surveillance

PURPOSE

Active surveillance is an approach to low and low intermediate risk prostate cancer that is designed to decrease overtreatment. Despite close monitoring a small subset of patients progress to metastatic disease. We analyzed the clinical and pathological correlates of surveillance in patients who eventually experienced metastasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single center, prospective cohort study. Eligible patients were treated with an expectant approach. The main outcome measure was metastasis-free survival. Predictive factors for metastasis were identified.

RESULTS

Metastasis developed in 30 of 980 patients, of whom 211 were classified at intermediate risk, including 14 who progressed to metastatic disease. Median followup was 6.3 years, median age was 70 years, median prostate specific antigen was 6.2 ng/ml and median time to metastasis was 8.9 years. Metastases developed in bone in 18 patients (60%) and in lymph nodes in 13 (43%). Prostate specific antigen doubling time less than 3 years (HR 3.7, 95% CI 1.4-9.4, p = 0.0006), Gleason score 7 (HR 3.0, 95% CI 1.2-7.3, p = 0.0018) and a total of 3 or more positive cores (HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.1-6.8, p = 0.0028) were independent predictors of metastasis. Although the intermediate risk group was at higher risk for metastasis, those with Gleason score 6 and prostate specific antigen greater than 10 ng/ml were not at increased risk for metastasis. Metastasis developed in only 2 patients with Gleason score 6 and neither had surgical pathology grading.

CONCLUSION

Active surveillance appears safe in patients at low risk and in select patients at intermediate risk, particularly those with Gleason score 6 and prostate specific antigen greater than 10 ng/ml. Patients with elements of Gleason pattern 4 on diagnostic biopsy are at increased risk for eventual metastasis when treated with an initial conservative approach.

Disease reclassification risk with stringent criteria and frequent monitoring in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance

OBJECTIVES

To determine the frequency of disease reclassification and to identify clinicopathological variables associated with it in patients with favourable-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance (AS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We assessed 191 men, selected by what may be the most stringent criteria used in AS studies yet conducted, who were enrolled in a prospective cohort AS trial. Clinicopathological characteristics were analysed in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model. Key features were an extended biopsy with a single core positive for Gleason score (GS) 3 + 3 (<3 mm) or 3 + 4 (<2 mm) and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level <4 ng/mL (adjusted for prostate volume). Biopsies were repeated every 1-2 years and clinical evaluations every 6 months. Disease was reclassified when PSA level increased by 30% from baseline, or when biopsy tumour length increased beyond the enrolment criteria, more than one positive core was detected or any grade increased to a dominant 4 pattern or any 5 pattern.

RESULTS

Disease was reclassified in 32 patients (16.8%) including upgrading to GS 4 + 3 in five patients (2.6%). The median (interquartile range) follow-up time among survivors was 3 (1.9-4.6) years. Overall, 13 of the 32 (40.6%) had incremental increases in GS. Tumour length (hazard ratio 2.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-6.46; P = 0.007) and older age (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.00-1.09; P = 0.05) were identified as significant and marginally significant predictors of disease reclassification, respectively. Disease remained stable in 83.2% of patients.

CONCLUSION

The need persists for improvements in risk stratification and predictive indicators of cancer progression.

Active surveillance and focal therapy for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer

Low risk and many cases of low-intermediate risk prostate cancer, are indolent, have little or no metastatic potential, and are not life threatening. Major advances have been made in understanding who these patients are, and in encouraging the use of conservative management in such individuals. Conservative management incorporates the early identification of those 'low risk' patients who harbor higher risk disease, and benefit from definitive therapy. Based on the current algorithm of PSA followed by systematic biopsy, this represents about 30% of newly diagnosed low risk patients. A further small proportion of patients with low risk disease demonstrate biological progression to higher grade disease. Men with lower risk disease can defer treatment, usually for life. Men with higher risk disease that can be localized to a relatively small volume of the prostate may be candidates for focal, prostate sparing therapy. The results of active surveillance, embodying conservative management with selective delayed intervention for the subset who are re-classified as higher risk over time based on repeat biopsy, imaging, or biomarker results, have shown that this approach is safe in the intermediate to long term, with a 1-5% cancer specific mortality at 15 years. Further refinement of the surveillance approach is ongoing, incorporating MRI, targeted biopsies, and molecular biomarkers.

High risk of under-grading and -staging in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance

Background

Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly offered to patients with low risk prostate cancer. The present study was conducted to evaluate the risk of tumor under-grading and -staging for AS eligibility. Moreover, we analyzed possible biomarkers for predicting more unfavorable final tumor histology.

Methods

197 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RPE) but would have met the EAU (European Association of Urology) criteria for AS (PSA<10 ng/ml, biopsy GS ≤6, ≤2 cancer-positive biopsy cores with ≤50% of tumor in any core and clinical stage ≤T2a) were included in the study. These AS inclusion parameters were correlated to the final histology of the RPE specimens. The impact of preoperative PSA level (low PSA ≤4 ng/ml vs. intermediate PSA of >4–10 ng/ml), PSA density (<15 vs. ≥ 15 ng/ml) and the number of positive biopsy cores (1 vs. 2 positive cores) on predicting upgrading and final adverse histology of the RPE specimens was analyzed in uni- and multivariate analyses. Moreover, clinical courses of undergraded patients were assessed.

Results

In our patient cohort 41.1% were found under-graded in the biopsy (final histology 40.1% GS7, 1% GS8). Preoperative PSA levels, PSA density or the number of positive cores were not predictive for worse final pathological findings including GS >6, extraprostatic extension and positive resection margin (R1) or correlated significantly with up-grading and/or extraprostatic extension in a multivariate model. Only R1 resections were predictable by combining intermediate PSA levels with two positive biopsy cores (p = 0.004). Sub-analyses showed that the number of biopsy cores (10 vs. 15 biopsy cores) had no influence on above mentioned results on predicting biopsy undergrading. Clinical courses of patients showed that 19.9% of patients had a biochemical relapse after RPE, among all of them were undergraded in the initial biopsy.

Conclusion

In summary, this study shows that a multitude of patients fulfilling the criteria for AS are under-diagnosed. The use of preoperative PSA levels, PSA density and the number of positive cores were not predictable for undergrading in the present patient collective.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification

CONTEXT

Active surveillance (AS) is an important strategy to reduce prostate cancer overtreatment. However, the optimal criteria for eligibility and predictors of progression while on AS are debated.

OBJECTIVE

To review primary data on markers, genetic factors, and risk stratification for patient selection and predictors of progression during AS.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to April 2014 for original articles on biomarkers and risk stratification for AS.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Patient factors associated with AS outcomes in some studies include age, race, and family history. Multiple studies provide consistent evidence that a lower percentage of free prostate-specific antigen (PSA), a higher Prostate Health Index (PHI), a higher PSA density (PSAD), and greater biopsy core involvement at baseline predict a greater risk of progression. During follow-up, serial measurements of PHI and PSAD, as well as repeat biopsy results, predict later biopsy progression. While some studies have suggested a univariate relationship between urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and transmembrane protease, serine 2-v-ets avian erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog gene fusion (TMPRSS2:ERG) with adverse biopsy features, these markers have not been consistently shown to independently predict AS outcomes. No conclusive data support the use of genetic tests in AS. Limitations of these studies include heterogeneous definitions of progression and limited follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a growing body of literature on patient characteristics, biopsy features, and biomarkers with potential utility in AS. More data are needed on practical applications such as combining these tests into multivariable clinical algorithms and long-term outcomes to further improve AS in the future.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Several PSA-based tests (free PSA, PHI, PSAD) and the extent of cancer on biopsy can help to stratify the risk of progression during active surveillance. Investigation of several other markers is under way.

Prostate cancer: a review of active surveillance

The objective of this paper is to review the current recommendations for active surveillance in prostate cancer from the present prospective studies. Worldwide, there are increasing numbers of men with prostate cancer. It is now accepted as standard care that a number of men with favorable-risk disease can be followed with active surveillance. In 1995, the first prospective studies were initiated to assess the feasibility of active surveillance, in which the decision to intervene was determined by prostate-specific antigen and/or histological progression. The strategy was to provide therapy individualized to the biological behavior of the cancer. Clinical trials assessing active surveillance have usually included patients younger than 70 years of age, although the guidelines have changed over time for Gleason score and prostate-specific antigen, eg, doubling time, thereby changing the indication for active treatment. The present review focuses on patient selection, prospective studies reported in the literature, and future directions.

Management of low risk prostate cancer-active surveillance and focal therapy

Low-risk prostate cancer, defined as Gleason Score 6 or less with PSA <10 ng/ml, is diagnosed in about half of men undergoing screening. Approximately 30% of men diagnosed with low-risk disease harbour high-grade cancer that is unrepresented on the biopsy. Moreover, a small percentage of low-grade cancers have molecular alterations that result in progression to aggressive disease. Favourable-risk prostate cancer should be managed with close follow up. Active surveillance is appropriate for most patients with low-risk disease, and radical treatment should be reserved for cases in which higher-risk disease is identified. In turn, focal therapy aims to preserve tissue and function in men who have been diagnosed with localized disease, and should be offered to men with higher risk disease at baseline, as an alternative to whole-gland radiation or surgery, or when the patient transitions from low-risk to higher-risk disease. The two strategies should be viewed as complementary elements of care that can be applied in a risk-stratified manner. In this Review, we discuss the rationale and current status of active surveillance-which constitutes a standard of care in most evidence-based guidelines-and comment on whether and when focal therapy should complement it in those men wishing to continue a tissue-preserving strategy.

Imaging and Markers as Novel Diagnostic Tools in Detecting Insignificant Prostate Cancer: A Critical Overview

Recent therapeutic advances for managing low-risk prostate cancer include the active surveillance and focal treatment. However, locating a tumor and detecting its volume by adequate sampling is still problematic. Development of predictive biomarkers guiding individual therapeutic choices remains an ongoing challenge. At the same time, prostate cancer magnetic resonance imaging is gaining increasing importance for prostate diagnostics. The high morphological resolution of T2-weighted imaging and functional MRI methods may increase the specificity and sensitivity of diagnostics. Also, recent studies founded an ability of novel biomarkers to identify clinically insignificant prostate cancer, risk of progression, and association with poor differentiation and, therefore, with clinical significance. Probably, the above mentioned methods would improve tumor characterization in terms of its volume, aggressiveness, and focality. In this review, we attempted to evaluate the applications of novel imaging techniques and biomarkers in assessing the significance of the prostate cancer.

EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013

CONTEXT

The most recent summary of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on prostate cancer (PCa) was published in 2011.

OBJECTIVE

To present a summary of the 2013 version of the EAU guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically organ-confined PCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature review of the new data emerging from 2011 to 2013 has been performed by the EAU PCa guideline group. The guidelines have been updated, and levels of evidence and grades of recommendation have been added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A full version of the guidelines is available at the EAU office or online (www.uroweb.org). Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population-based screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for PCa. Systematic prostate biopsies under ultrasound guidance and local anesthesia are the preferred diagnostic method. Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy. A biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention, whereas the role of PSA doubling time is controversial. In men with locally advanced PCa for whom local therapy is not mandatory, watchful waiting (WW) is a treatment alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), with equivalent oncologic efficacy. Active treatment is recommended mostly for patients with localized disease and a long life expectancy, with radical prostatectomy (RP) shown to be superior to WW in prospective randomized trials. Nerve-sparing RP is the approach of choice in organ-confined disease, while neoadjuvant ADT provides no improvement in outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with ≥ 74 Gy in low-risk PCa and 78 Gy in intermediate- or high-risk PCa. For locally advanced disease, adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior rates for disease-specific and overall survival and is the treatment of choice. Follow-up after local therapy is largely based on PSA and a disease-specific history, with imaging indicated only when symptoms occur.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarize the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice.

PATIENT SUMMARY

A summary is presented of the 2013 EAU guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa). Screening continues to be done on an individual basis, in consultation with a physician. Diagnosis is by prostate biopsy. Active surveillance is an option in low-risk PCa and watchful waiting is an alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy in locally advanced PCa not requiring immediate local treatment. Radical prostatectomy is the only surgical option. Radiation therapy can be external or delivered by way of prostate implants. Treatment follow-up is based on the PSA level.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: overview and update

Low-risk prostate cancer: How I would treat it? Overtreatment of many conditions diagnosed by screening has become increasingly recognized as a contemporary malady associated with modern medicine's efforts at earlier detection. The diagnosis of low-grade prostate cancer clearly qualifies as an example of potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer is an attempt to reduce the overtreatment of the disease. The approach involves initial expectant management rather than immediate therapy. Curative treatment is deferred while the patient is monitored and offered for evidence of risk reclassification to a more aggressive form of the disease. The basis for this approach is substantial evidence confirming the long natural history of most prostate cancers. The objective is to balance the risks of overtreatment and associated adverse quality of life effects, against the risk of progression of disease and a missed opportunity for curative therapy. Low-risk prostate cancer is more accurately viewed as one of several risk factors for the patient harboring higher-grade disease, rather than a life-threatening condition. This approach is similar to that taken historically for so-called precancerous conditions, such as PIN or ASAP, where patients were managed with close follow-up but without radical intervention unless clear evidence of more aggressive disease is identified. Active surveillance is increasingly viewed as the management of choice for patients with very low-risk (low-grade, low-volume prostate cancer) and low-risk (low-grade but higher volume) disease.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: an underutilized opportunity for reducing harm

The management of localized prostate cancer is controversial, and in the absence of comparative trials to inform best practice, choices are driven by personal beliefs with wide variation in practice patterns. Men with localized disease diagnosed today often undergo treatments that will not improve overall health outcomes, and active surveillance has emerged as one approach to reducing this overtreatment of prostate cancer. The selection of appropriate candidates for active surveillance should balance the risk of harm from prostate cancer without treatment, and a patient's personal preferences for living with a cancer and the potential side effects of curative treatments. Although limitations exist in assessing the potential for a given prostate cancer to cause harm, the most common metrics used today consider cancer stage, prostate biopsy features, and prostate-specific antigen level together with the risk of death from nonprostate causes based on age and overall state of health.

Active surveillance: the Canadian experience with an "inclusive approach"

Active surveillance has evolved to become a standard of care for favorable-risk prostate cancer. This is a summary of the rationale, method, and results of active surveillance beginning in 1995 with the first prospective trial of this approach. This was a prospective, single-arm cohort study. Patients were managed with an initial expectant approach. Definitive intervention was offered to those patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of less than 3 years, Gleason score progression (to 4+3 or greater), or unequivocal clinical progression. Survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard model were applied to the data. Since November 1995, 450 patients have been managed with active surveillance. The cohort included men under 70 with favorable-risk disease and men of age more than 70 with favorable- or intermediate-risk cancer (Gleason score 3+4 or PSA 10-15). Median follow-up is 6.8 years (range 1-16 years). Overall survival is 78.6%. Ten-year prostate cancer actuarial survival is 97.2%. Five of 450 patients (1.1%) have died of prostate cancer. Thirty percent of patients have been reclassified as higher-risk patients and offered definitive therapy. The commonest indication for treatment was a PSA doubling time less than 3 years (48%) or Gleason upgrading (26%). Of 117 patients treated radically, the PSA failure rate was 50%. This represents 13% of the total cohort. Most PSA failures occurred early; at 2 years, 44% of the treated patients had PSA failure. The hazard ratio for non-prostate cancer mortality to prostate cancer mortality was 18.6 at 10 years. In conclusion, we observed a very low rate of prostate cancer mortality in an intermediate time frame. Among the one-third of patients who were reclassified as higher risk and retreated, PSA failure was relatively common. However, other-cause mortality accounted for almost all of the deaths. Further studies are warranted to improve the identification of patients who harbor more aggressive disease in spite of favorable clinical parameters at diagnosis [reproduced from Klotz (1) with permission from Wolters Kluwer Health].

Performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation and management of clinically low-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to review the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mMRI) of the prostate and MR-guided prostate biopsy, and their role in the evaluation and management of men with low-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

We performed a literature review based on the MEDLINE database search for publications on the role of mMRI (a) in detection and localization of prostate cancer, prediction of tumor aggressiveness and progression and (b) in guiding targeted prostate biopsy.

RESULTS

The mMRI, particularly diffusion-weighted imaging with T2-weighted imaging, is a useful tool for tumor localization in low-risk prostate cancer as it can detect lesions that are more likely missed on extended biopsy schemes and can identify clinically significant disease requiring definitive treatment. The MR-guided biopsy of the most suspicious lesions enables more accurate and safer approach to guide enrollment into the active surveillance program. However, the MR-guided biopsy is complex. The fusion of MRI data with transrectal ultrasound for the purpose of biopsy provides a more feasible technique with documented accurate sampling.

CONCLUSION

Although the mMRI is not routinely used for risk stratification and prognostic assessment in prostate cancer, it can provide valuable information to guide management of men with low-risk disease. Incorporation of mMRI into the workup and monitoring of patients with low-risk prostate cancer can help discriminate clinically significant disease from indolent disease. Targeted biopsy of MR-suspicious lesions enables accurate sampling of potentially aggressive tumors that may affect outcomes.

Prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the evidence, now extensive, that efforts to reduce prostate cancer mortality by screening and early detection result in overdiagnosis of disease that is clinically insignificant, and would never have been diagnosed in the patient's lifetime in the absence of screening. Overdiagnosis may result in overtreatment, which in the case of prostate cancer often carries significant, long-term quality-of-life effects. The review also addresses the solutions to the problem of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and summarizes the outcomes of these approaches.

RECENT FINDINGS

Screening for prostate cancer has been demonstrated to reduce mortality, although with a high number needed to treat. One approach to this problem is to offer patients with favorable risk disease an initial conservative approach, with close monitoring and treatment for those patients who are reclassified as higher risk over time. Much preclinical data indicates that Gleason 6 prostate cancer does not carry the hallmarks of malignancy. However, a number of recent studies have demonstrated that in patients diagnosed with favorable risk prostate cancer (Gleason 6 or less, prostate-specific antigen <10), about 30% will harbor higher grade cancer and benefit from treatment. These patients are identifiable by a combination of repeat biopsy, serial prostate-specific antigen, and in borderline cases, multiparametric MRI.

SUMMARY

Active surveillance is a powerful solution to the problem of overdiagnosis and overtreatment associated with screening for prostate cancer. For the 40-50% of patients with favorable risk prostate cancer, it offers the benefit of personalized medicine, avoiding treatment and related quality-of-life effects altogether in the majority, and providing definitive management for the minority who are reclassified with higher risk disease over time.

Delayed radical prostatectomy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer is associated with biochemical recurrence: possible implications for active surveillance from the SEARCH database

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) is increasingly accepted as appropriate management for low-risk prostate cancer (PC) patients. It is unknown whether delaying radical prostatectomy (RP) is associated with increased risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) for men with intermediate-risk PC.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 1,561 low and intermediate-risk men from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database treated with RP between 1988 and 2011. Patients were stratified by interval between diagnosis and RP (≤ 3, 3-6, 6-9, or >9 months) and by risk using the D'Amico classification. Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze BCR. Logistic regression was used to analyze positive surgical margins (PSM), extracapsular extension (ECE), and pathologic upgrading.

RESULTS

Overall, 813 (52%) men were low-risk, and 748 (48%) intermediate-risk. Median follow-up among men without recurrence was 52.9 months, during which 437 men (38.9%) recurred. For low-risk men, RP delays were unrelated to BCR, ECE, PSM, or upgrading (all P > 0.05). For intermediate-risk men, however, delays >9 months were significantly related to BCR (HR: 2.10, P = 0.01) and PSM (OR: 4.08, P < 0.01). Delays >9 months were associated with BCR in subsets of intermediate-risk men with biopsy Gleason score ≤ 3 + 4 (HR: 2.51, P < 0.01), PSA ≤ 6 (HR: 2.82, P = 0.06), and low tumor volume (HR: 2.59, P = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

For low-risk men, delayed RP did not significantly affect outcome. For men with intermediate-risk disease, delays >9 months predicted greater BCR and PSM risk. If confirmed in future studies, this suggests delayed RP for intermediate-risk PC may compromise outcomes.

Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) aims to allow men with favourable-risk, localised prostate cancer to avoid unnecessary treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the clinical outcomes of a prospective study of AS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A single-centre, prospective cohort study. Eligibility criteria included histologically proven prostate adenocarcinoma, age 50-80 yr, stage T1/T2, prostate-specific antigen level (PSA) <15 ng/ml, Gleason score (GS) ≤ 3+3 (GS ≤ 3+4 if aged >65 yr), and percent positive biopsy cores (PPC) ≤ 50%.

INTERVENTION

Patients were assessed by serum PSA level, and digital rectal examination at 3-mo intervals in year 1, 4-mo intervals in year 2, and at 6-mo intervals thereafter. Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy was performed after 18-24 mo and every 2 yr thereafter. Treatment was recommended for PSA velocity (PSAV) >1 ng/ml per year or adverse histology, defined as GS ≥ 4+3 or PPC >50%.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Outcomes described, using Kaplan-Meier methods, were rate of adverse histology on repeat biopsy, freedom from treatment, biochemical control after deferred treatment, and overall survival. Analyses using Cox regression were performed to determine predictors of deferred treatment and adverse histology.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The study enrolled 471 eligible patients from 2002 to 2011. Median age was 66 yr and median initial PSA value was 6.4 ng/ml. Eighty-eight percent of patients had T1 disease and 93% had GS ≤ 3+3. At median follow-up of 5.7 yr, the 5-yr rate of adverse histology and treatment-free probability was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16-29%) and 70% (95% CI, 65-75%), respectively. There were two deaths from prostate cancer. Predictors of time to adverse histology were GS 7, PSAV >1 ng/ml per year, low ratio of free PSA to total PSA, and PPC >25%. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the safety of this strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates satisfactory medium-term outcomes for AS in selected men with localised prostate cancer.

Pathological and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men with low-risk prostate cancer meeting the Prostate Cancer International: Active Surveillance criteria

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Active surveillance has been widely accepted as a treatment tool for low-risk prostate cancer, and use of the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria can select smaller and less aggressive tumours in low-risk disease. The study shows the pathological outcomes of radical prostatectomy for patients with low-risk disease who met the PRIAS criteria. It found that ~20% had unfavourable pathological features and only 30% satisfied insignificant cancer criteria with pT2 stage, a Gleason score ≤6 and tumour volume <2.5 mL. It concludes that close follow-up including repeat biopsy or MRI is necessary to minimize unexpected progression of disease.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria in identifying indolent cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from 1268 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy without neoadjuvant therapy were retrospectively reviewed. Within this cohort, patients with low-risk disease (n = 211) were classified according to whether they met (Group A, n = 87) or did not meet (Group B, n = 124) the PRIAS criteria. Pathological upstaging, upgrading, tumour volume and 5-year prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence-free survival were compared between the two groups, and factors that predicted upstaging, upgrading and PSA recurrence were analysed by univariate and multivariate methods.

RESULTS

Pathological T3 stage was present in 10.3% of patients in Group A and in 18.5% of patients in Group B (P = 0.08). Gleason score upgrading to 4+3 or greater was seen in 19.5% of Group A and in 29.9% of Group B (P = 0.01). The mean (range) tumour volume was 0.81 (0.03-5.09) mL in Group A and 1.40 (0.04-8.21) mL in Group B (P < 0.01). The rates of insignificant cancer with total tumour volume <2.5 mL, Gleason score ≤6 and stage pT2 were 30.6% in Group A and 15.4% in Group B (P = 0.07). With a median follow-up of 44 months, the 5-year PSA recurrence-free survival rates were 91.2% in Group A and 86.4% in Group B (P = 0.47). In multivariate analysis, PSA density and the PRIAS criteria were independent factors that predicted upstaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Although use of the PRIAS criteria could select more favourable tumours even in low-risk prostate cancer, about one in five men had unfavourable pathological outcomes and only three in ten had insignificant cancer. Close and careful follow-up is necessary to avoid misclassification or progression of disease, especially during the first few years of active surveillance.

Role of active surveillance in the management of localized prostate cancer

Active surveillance is an increasingly recognized treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Despite encouraging evidence for oncologic efficacy and reduction in morbidity, several barriers contribute to the underuse of this management strategy. Consistent selection criteria as well as identification and validation of triggers for subsequent intervention are essential. Incorporation of novel biomarkers as well as advanced imaging techniques may improve surveillance strategies by better defining eligibility as well as improving prompt detection of disease progression.

Prostate cancer: multiparametric MRI for index lesion localization--a multiple-reader study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of multiparametric MRI in localization of the index lesion of prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-one patients who underwent 3-T MRI of the prostate with a pelvic phased-array coil that included T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences before prostatectomy were included. Six radiologists assessed all images to identify the lesion most suspicious of being the index lesion, which was localized to one of 18 regions. A uropathologist using the same 18-region scheme reviewed the prostatectomy slides to localize the index lesion. MRI performance was assessed by requiring either an exact match or an approximate match (discrepancy of up to one region) between the MRI and pathologic findings in terms of assigned region.

RESULTS

The pathologist identified an index lesion in 49 of 51 patients. In exact-match analysis, the average sensitivity was 60.2% (range, 51.0-63.3%), and the average positive predictive value (PPV) was 65.3% (range, 61.2-69.4%). In approximate-match analysis, the average sensitivity was 75.9% (range, 65.3-69.6%), and the average PPV was 82.6% (range, 79.2-91.4%). The sensitivity was higher for index lesions with a Gleason score greater than 6 in exact-match (74.8% vs 15.3%, p<0.001) and approximate-match (88.7% vs 36.1%, p=<0.001) analyses and for index lesions measuring at least 1 cm in approximate-match analysis (80.3% vs 58.3%, p=0.016). In exact-match analysis, 30.0%, 44.9%, and 79.1% of abnormalities found with one, two, and three MRI parameters represented the index lesion (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The sensitivity and PPV of multiparametric MRI for index lesion localization were moderate, although they improved in the setting of more aggressive pathologic features and a greater number of abnormal MRI parameters, respectively.

The current status of active surveillance for prostate cancer

The occurrence of low-risk, localized prostate cancer (PCa) has increased in the prostate-specific antigen era. A significant amount of low-risk PCas progress slowly and may not impact patient survival. Thus, these patients may be subjected to unnecessary interventions that result in physical and psychological complications. The active surveillance (AS) protocol has been used over the few past decades. It was designed so that patients with low-risk PCa can be monitored for a period of time, during which they are free from complication of interventions, and can be treated with curative intention on evidence of disease progression. Institutions have developed different selection criteria and follow-up schedules for suitable patients with PCa. Recently, long-term data have emerged suggesting that AS is a reasonable option for appropriately selected patients with low-risk PCa who have a life expectancy of < 10 years. Subsequently, the AS protocol has been recognized by various guidelines as part of the treatment strategy for PCa. However, the challenges that remain for AS are the risk of under-staging of PCa and the low uptake and high attrition rate of AS, and questions remain regarding its long-term efficacy. Recent advances in AS for PCa, such as better imaging modality, combining AS with limited local therapy, as well as the role of AS in association with chemoprevention, are discussed.

Is it possible to predict low-volume and insignificant prostate cancer by core needle biopsies?

In an attempt to minimize overtreatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa) active surveillance (AS) and minor invasive procedures have received increased attention. We investigated the accuracy of pre-operative findings in defining insignificant disease and distinguishing between unilateral/unifocal and bilateral/multifocal PCa. One-hundred and sixty patients undergoing radical prostatectomy were included. Histology reports from the biopsies and matching prostatectomies were compared. Three definitions of insignificant cancer were used: InsigE: tumour volume ≤0.5 mL; InsigW: tumour volume ≤1.3 mL; InsigM: tumour ≤5% of total prostate volume and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤10 ng/mL. In all definitions, Gleason score (GS) was ≤6 and the tumour was organ confined. Biopsies alone performed poorly as a predictor of unifocal and unilateral cancer in the prostatectomy specimens with positive predictive values of 17.8% and 18.9% respectively. Inclusion of other clinical and biochemical parameters did not significantly increase the predictive value. However, the combination of GS ≤ 6, PSA ≤ 10 ng/mL and unifocal or unilateral cancer in biopsy cores resulted in a positive predictive value of 61.1%, 38.9% and 12.0%, respectively, for identifying InsigM, InsigW and InsigE in the prostate specimen. Conclusively, routine prostate biopsies cannot predict unifocal and unilateral PCa, and must be regarded insufficient to select patients for focal therapy. Although candidates for AS may be identified using standard biopsies, a considerable fraction of patients will be understaged. There is a need for more precise diagnostic tools to assess intraprostatic tumour growth.

Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer

Active surveillance for localized prostate cancer entails initial expectant management rather than immediate therapy, with "curative-intent" treatment deferred until there is evidence that the patient is at increased risk for disease progression. This is a response to the clearly documented risks of over diagnosis and overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer, which in most cases poses little or no threat to the patient. It is based upon the prolonged natural history of prostate cancer and is an attempt to balance the risks and side effects of overtreatment against the possibility of disease progression and a lost opportunity for cure. Low-risk prostate cancer is more accurately viewed as one of multiple risk factors for the presence of higher grade prostate cancer. Like atypical small acinar proliferation, (ASAP), it may be managed with close follow up but without radical intervention, unless there is clear evidence of more aggressive disease.

[Accuracy of prostate biopsies to evaluate tumor location in prostate cancer]

INTRODUCTION

The therapeutic approach of prostate cancer depends mainly on pathological criteria obtained through prostate biopsy. The low accuracy of prostate biopsy for Gleason grade determination is well known but its accuracy for bilateral or multifocal tumor has not been evaluated. The goal of this study was to assess the concordance between prostate biopsy and whole prostate specimen obtained after radical prostatectomy especially for bilateral and/or multifocal tumor.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the pathological results of prostate biopsy cores to the prostate specimen in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in our department between the 01/01/1999 and the 31/12/2008. The criteria analyzed were the Gleason score, tumor bilaterality or multifocality. The impact of the number of prostate biopsy cores was also analyzed.

RESULTS

Two hundred and five complete histological records were studied. Regarding the Gleason score overall concordance was 55%. In 38%, prostate biopsies downgraded the Gleason score. This concordance decreased with tumor differentiation (90.6% for Gleason 6 vs. 31% for Gleason greater than 7). For the tumor bilaterality, 78% of cancers affected both lobes at the definitive specimen analysis while only 49% were bilateral at prostate biopsies, achieving a concordance of 61%. Multifocal disease was observed in 36% at definitive pathology analysis with low concordance with prostate biopsies (36%). The number of biopsies increased the concordance for the Gleason score (60 to 81% for Gleason 7 and from 28 to 50% for Gleason greater than 7) and tumor location (44 to 70%).

CONCLUSION

Pathological criteria and tumor mapping obtained from prostate biopsies were not very reliable especially when the tumor was poorly differentiated. An increased number of prostate biopsy core improved the sensitivity and specificity for the Gleason score diagnostic and of the tumor mapping.

Introducing parametric fusion PET/MRI of primary prostate cancer

We assessed the performance of parametric fusion PET/MRI based on (11)C-choline PET/CT and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps derived from diffusion-weighted MRI for the identification of primary prostate cancer.

METHODS

(11)C-choline PET/CT and MRI were performed in 17 patients with untreated primary prostate cancer, followed by prostatectomy. Registration of in vivo imaging with histology was achieved using a mutual-information objective function and by performing ex vivo MRI of the prostatectomy specimen (obtained at 3 T) and whole-mount sectioning with block-face photography as intermediate steps. Data analysis included volumetrically registered whole-mount histology with Gleason scoring, (11)C-choline, and ADC data (obtained at 1.5 T). Volumes of interest were defined on the basis of histologically proven tumor tissue to calculate tumor-to-benign prostate background ratios (TBRs) for (11)C-choline, ADC, and a derived fusion PET/MRI parameter calculating the quotient of (11)C-choline over ADC (P(CHOL/ADC)).

RESULTS

Fifty-one tumor nodules were identified at pathology. The TBRs for (11)C-choline (P < 0.05) and P(CHOL/ADC) (P < 0.005) were significantly higher in prostate cancers with a Gleason score of ≥3 + 4 than with a Gleason score of ≤3 + 3 disease and controls. For Gleason ≥ 3 + 4, the ADC TBRs were significantly lower than controls and Gleason ≤ 3 + 3 disease (P < 0.05). The absolute value of TBRs obtained from Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 cancers increased from ADC to (11)C-choline PET/CT and from (11)C-choline PET/CT to P(CHOL/ADC), with each step being statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that parametric PET/MRI using P(CHOL/ADC) improves lesion-to-background contrast (TBRs) of Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 disease, compared with (11)C-choline PET/CT or diffusion-weighted MRI, and thus hold promise that parametric imaging performed on hybrid PET/MRI may further improve identification and localization of significant primary prostate cancer.

Management of low (favourable)-risk prostate cancer

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Most men who are diagnosed with favourable-risk prostate cancer undergo some form of active intervention, despite evidence that treatment will not improve health outcomes for many. The decision to undergo treatment after diagnosis is, in part, related to the inability to precisely determine the long-term risk of harm without treatment. Nevertheless, physicians should consider patient age, overall health, and preferences for living with cancer and the potential side effects of curative treatments, before recommending a management option. This is especially important for older men, given the high level of evidence that those with low-risk disease are unlikely to accrue any benefit from curative intervention. What is known on the subject: Over treatment of favourable-risk prostate cancer is common, especially among older men. What does the study add: A review of the natural history of favourable-risk prostate cancer in the context of choices for management of the disease. • The management of favourable-risk prostate cancer is controversial, and in the absence of controlled trials to inform best practice, choices are driven by personal beliefs with resultant wide variation in practice patterns. • Men with favourable-risk prostate cancer diagnosed today often undergo treatments that will not improve overall health outcomes. • A shared-decision approach for selecting optimal management of favourable-risk disease should account for patient age, overall health, and preferences for living with cancer and the potential side effects of curative treatments.

[EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part I: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease]

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to present a summary of the 2010 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised cancer of the prostate (PCa).

METHODS

The working panel performed a literature review of the new data emerging from 2007 to 2010. The guidelines were updated, and level of evidence and grade of recommendation were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews.

RESULTS

A full version is available at the EAU office or Web site (www.uroweb.org). Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population-based screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for PCa. A systematic prostate biopsy under ultrasound guidance and local anaesthesia is the preferred diagnostic method. Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy. PSA doubling time in < 3 yr or a biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention. In men with locally advanced PCa in whom local therapy is not mandatory, watchful waiting (WW) is a treatment alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with equivalent oncologic efficacy. Active treatment is mostly recommended for patients with localised disease and a long life expectancy with radical prostatectomy (RP) shown to be superior to WW in a prospective randomised trial. Nerve-sparing RP represents the approach of choice in organ-confined disease; neoadjuvant androgen deprivation demonstrates no improvement of outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with at least 74Gy and 78Gy in low-risk and intermediate/high-risk PCa, respectively. For locally advanced disease, adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior disease-specific and overall survival rates and represents the treatment of choice. Follow-up after local therapy is largely based on PSA, and a disease-specific history with imaging is indicated only when symptoms occur.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice.