Prostate specific antigen velocity risk count predicts biopsy reclassification for men with very low risk prostate cancer

Contemporary Strategies for Clinical Chemoprevention of Localized Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer among men in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Metastatic castration-resistant PCa is still a fatal disease. On the other hand, between 2016 and 2020, about 70% of PCa cases were diagnosed at a localized stage. Evolving data demonstrates that men with low-grade cancers treated with definitive therapies may now be exposed to morbidities of overtreatment and poor quality of life, with little or no benefit in terms of cancer specific mortality. Active surveillance (AS) is thus the recommended management strategy for men with low-grade disease. Although this subgroup of men have reported anxiety during the AS period, they account to be highly motivated to make positive lifestyle changes to further reduce their risk of PCa progression, underscoring the urgent need to identify novel strategies for preventing progression of localized PCa to metastatic disease through pharmacologic means, an approach termed chemoprevention. Although several promising agents and approaches have been examined over the past 2 decades, currently, there are several limitations in the approach used to systematically examine agents for chemoprevention targeting men on AS. The goal of this review is to summarize the current agents and approaches evaluated, targeting men on AS, recognize the gaps, and identify a contemporary and comprehensive path forward. Results of these studies may inform the development of phase III clinical trials and ultimately provide a strategy for clinical chemoprevention in men on AS, for whom, currently, there are no options for reducing the risk of progression to metastatic disease.

Does Protocol Make a Difference? Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohorts: A Non-protocol-based Follow-up and a Protocol-based Contemporary Follow-up

Background

Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred option for initial management for low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Although many AS protocols exist, there is little evidence to support one over another.

Objective

To assess whether there is difference in overall (OS), prostate cancer–specific (CSS), metastasis-free (MFS), or treatment-free (TFS) survival between a strict (Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance [PRIAS]) and a loose (European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ERSPC]) AS protocol.

Design, setting, and participants

This study included two cohorts of men (n = 518) with low-risk, localized, Gleason score ≤7 PC. The ERSPC cohort included 241 men followed for 9.5 yr (median) with a non–protocol-based follow-up. The PRIAS cohort included 277 men followed for 5 yr (median) with a strict protocol.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

OS, CSS, MFS, and TFS were compared by the Kaplan-Meier method, competing risk analysis, and Cox proportional hazard regression.

Results and limitations

As expected, due to the difference in median follow-up time between the cohorts, a difference in the absolute number of events was seen. However, no difference in any of the survival outcomes was evident in the Kaplan-Meier or competing risks analysis. Furthermore, in Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, cohort (ERSPC vs PRIAS) was not associated with any of the outcomes. Results are limited by the retrospective study design, limited statistical power, and inability to match the cohorts for predictive factors.

Conclusions

There was no difference in survival outcomes between a non–protocol-based follow-up and a protocol-based contemporary AS follow-up of patients with low-risk PC. However, a longer follow-up is needed.

Patient summary

We compared survival outcomes of two cohorts of patients with low-risk prostate cancer: a strict and a loose follow-up protocol. We found no differences in survival measures between the cohorts.

Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: Role of Available Biomarkers in Daily Practice

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. The diagnosis is currently based on PSA levels, which are associated with overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Moreover, most PCas are localized tumours; hence, many patients with low-/very low-risk PCa could benefit from active surveillance (AS) programs instead of more aggressive, active treatments. Heterogeneity within inclusion criteria and follow-up strategies are the main controversial issues that AS presently faces. Many biomarkers are currently under investigation in this setting; however, none has yet demonstrated enough diagnostic ability as an independent predictor of pathological or clinical progression. This work aims to review the currently available literature on tissue, blood and urine biomarkers validated in clinical practice for the management of AS patients.

Advances in the selection of patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance

Early identification and management of prostate cancer completely changed with the discovery of prostate-specific antigen. However, improved detection has also led to overdiagnosis and consequently overtreatment of patients with low-risk disease. Strategies for the management of patients using active surveillance - the monitoring of clinically insignificant disease until intervention is warranted - were developed in response to this issue. The success of this approach is critically dependent on the accurate selection of patients who are predicted to be at the lowest risk of prostate cancer mortality. The Epstein criteria for clinically insignificant prostate cancer were first published in 1994 and have been repeatedly validated for risk-stratification and selection for active surveillance over the past few decades. Current active surveillance programmes use modified criteria with 30-50% of patients receiving treatment at 10 years. Nonetheless, tools for prostate cancer diagnosis have continued to evolve with improvements in biopsy format and targeting, advances in imaging technologies such as multiparametric MRI, and the identification of serum-, tissue- and urine-based biomarkers. These advances have the potential to further improve the identification of men with low-risk disease who can be appropriately managed using active surveillance.

Green tea extract for prevention of prostate cancer progression in patients on active surveillance

Background

Active surveillance (AS) has evolved as a management strategy for men with low grade prostate cancer (PCa). However, these patients report anxiety, doubts about the possible progression of the disease as well as higher decisional conflict regarding selection of active surveillance, and have been reported to ultimately opt for treatment without any major change in tumor characteristics. Currently, there is a paucity of research that systematically examines alternate strategies for this target population.

Methods

We conducted a review the evidence from epidemiological, in vitro, preclinical and early phase trials that have evaluated green tea catechins (GTC) for secondary chemoprevention of prostate cancer, focused on men opting for active surveillanceof low grade PCa.

Results

Results of our review of the in vitro, preclinical and phase I-II trials, demonstrates that green tea catechins (GTC) can modulate several relevant intermediate biological intermediate endpoint biomarkers implicated in prostate carcinogenesis as well as clinical progression of PCa, without major side effects.

Discussion

Although clinical trials using GTC have been evaluated in early phase trials in men diagnosed with High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia, Atypical Small Acinar Proliferation and in men with localized disease before prostatectomy, the effect of GTC on biological and clinical biomarkers implicated in prostate cancer progression have not been evaluated in this patient population.

Conclusion

Results of these studies promise to provide a strategy for secondary chemoprevention, reduce morbidities due to overtreatment and improve quality of life in men diagnosed with low-grade PCa.

Prostate-Specific Antigen Trends Predict the Probability of Prostate Cancer in a Very Large U.S. Veterans Affairs Cohort

If prostate-specific antigen (PSA) trends help identify elevated prostate cancer (PCa) risk, they might provide early warning of progressing cancer for further evaluation and justify annual testing. Our objective was to determine whether PSA trends predict PCa likelihood. A biopsy cohort of 361,657 men was obtained from a Veterans Affairs database (1999–2012). PSA trends were estimated for the 310,458 men with at least 2 PSA tests prior to biopsy. Cancer tumors may grow exponentially with cells doubling periodically. We hypothesized that PSA from prostate cancer grows exponentially above a no cancer baseline. We estimated PSA trends on that basis along with five descriptive variables: last PSA before biopsy, growth rate in PSA from cancer above a baseline, PSA variability around the trend, number of PSA tests, and time span of tests. PSA variability is a new variable that measures percentage deviations of PSA tests from estimated trends with 0% variability for a smoothly increasing trend. Logistic regression models were used to estimate relationships between the probability of PCa at biopsy and the trend variables and age. All five PSA trend variables and age were significant predictors of prostate cancer at biopsy (p < 0.0001). An overall logistic regression model achieved an AUC of 0.67 for men with at least 4 tests over at least 3 years, which was a substantial improvement over a single PSA (AUC 0.58). High probability of PCa was associated with low PSA variability (smooth trends), high PSA, high growth rate, many tests over a long time-span and older age. For example, at 4.0 PSA the probability of cancer is 32% for 1 PSA test and increases to 68% for 8 tests over 7 years with smooth, fast growth (0% variability and 50% exponential growth). Our results show that smooth, fast exponential growth in PSA above a baseline predicts an increased probability of PCa. The probability increases as smooth (low variability) trends are observed for more tests over a longer time span, which makes annual testing worth considering. Worrisome PSA trends might be used to trigger further evaluation and continued monitoring of the trends—even at low PSA levels.

Low-risk prostate cancer selected for active surveillance with negative MRI at entry: can repeat biopsies at 1 year be avoided? A pilot study

PURPOSE

In patients considered for active surveillance (AS), the use of MRI and targeted biopsies (TB) at entry challenges the approach of routine "per protocol" repeat systematic biopsies (SB) at 1 year. This pilot study aimed to assess whether an approach of performing repeat biopsies only if PSA kinetics are abnormal would be safe and sufficient to detect progression.

METHODS

Prospective single-centre study of 149 patients on AS with low-risk PCa, a negative MRI at entry, followed for a minimum of 12 months between 01/2007 and 12/2015. Group 1 (n = 78) patients had per-protocol 12-month repeat SB; group 2 (n = 71) patients did not. Surveillance tests for tumour progression were for both groups: for cause SB and MRI-TB biopsies if PSA velocity (PSA-V) > 0.75 ng/ml/year, or PSA doubling time (PSADT) < 3 years. The main objectives are to compare the 2-year rates of tumour progression and AS discontinuation between groups. The secondary objectives are to estimate the diagnostic power of PSA-V and PSA-DT, to predict the risk of tumour progression.

RESULTS

Overall, 21 out of 149 patients (14.1%) showed tumour progression, 17.1% for group 1 and 12.3% for group 2, and 31 (21.2%) discontinued AS at 2 years. There was no difference between the 2 groups (p = 0.56). The area under the PSA-V and PSADT curves to predict tumour progression was 0.92 and 0.83, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any significant difference for progression and AS discontinuation rate between the 2 groups. The PSA kinetic seems accurate as a marker of tumour progression. These results support the conduct of a multi-centre prospective trial to confirm these findings.

Biomarkers in active surveillance

The use of active surveillance (AS) is increasing for favorable-risk prostate cancer. However, there remain challenges in patient selection for AS, due to the limitations of current clinical staging. In addition, monitoring protocols relying on serial biopsies is invasive and presents risks such as infection. For these reasons, there is substantial interest in identifying markers that can be used to improve AS selection and monitoring. In this article, we review the evidence on serum, urine and tissue markers in AS.

Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy during active surveillance: Effect on hospitalization

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the effect of targeted antibiotic prophylaxis using rectal swab cultures on hospitalization for infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cohort of men (1995-2016) with prostate cancer on active surveillance receiving annual TRUSP biopsies was surveyed to determine the incidence of hospitalization for suspected postbiopsy sepsis. We compared biopsy events (i.e., unique biopsies) in the era of empiric prophylaxis to those in the era of targeted prophylaxis based on culture. The effect of fluoroquinolone resistant organisms (FQ-R), and other demographic and clinical factors, on hospitalization was assessed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 1,167 men on active surveillance, 825 responded for a total of 3,361 biopsy events; 7 (0.79%) of 886 biopsies preceded by rectal swab culture resulted in hospitalization compared to 24 (0.97%) of 2,475 biopsies without culture (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.35-1.89, P = 0.63). Among 886 cultures performed, FQ-R organisms were identified in 194 (21.9%); 6 out of 194 (3.1%) biopsies with swabs positive for FQ-R resulted in admission compared to 1 out of 692 (0.14%) biopsies with fluoroquinolone sensitive swabs (OR = 22.1, 95% CI: 2.6-184.3, P<0.01). Smaller prostate volume at diagnosis was significantly associated with hospitalization (OR = 2.57, 95% CI: 1.04-6.31) for<45 g vs. ≥45 g, P = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

Targeted antibiotic prophylaxis is not associated with a significant reduction in hospitalization for suspected post-TRUSP biopsy sepsis. FQ-R and prostate volume exhibited strong associations with risk of hospitalization and could be included in a risk-adapted approach to prophylaxis, but better prophylactic strategies are needed for patients identified to be at high risk of subsequent hospitalization.

Multiple growth periods predict unfavourable pathology in patients with small renal masses

OBJECTIVE

To use the number of positive growth periods as a characterization of the growth of small renal masses in order to determine potential predictors of malignancy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent axial imaging at multiple time points prior to surgical resection for a small renal mass were queried. Patients were categorized based on their pathological tumour grade and stage: favourable (benign, chromophobe and low-grade pT1-2 renal cell carcinoma [RCC]) vs unfavourable (high-grade of any stage and low-grade pT3-4 RCC). A positive growth period was counted each time the difference in greatest tumour diameters between two images was positive. The Cochran-Armitage trend test and Somers' D association were used to determine if the number of positive growth periods was correlated with unfavourable pathology.

RESULTS

Of the 124 patients, 86 (69.4%) had favourable pathology and 38 (30.6%) had unfavourable pathology. Those who had favourable pathology were younger than those who had unfavourable pathology: median (interquartile range [IQR]) 61.0 (52.2-66.0) vs 68.5 (61.5-77.0); P < 0.001. The overall growth rate was higher in the unfavourable group, but was not statistically significant: mean (sd) 0.7 (1.7) vs 1.6 (2.8) cm/year; P = 0.07. There was a significant trend difference in the number of positive growth periods between favourability groups (P = 0.02). An association between increased number of positive growth periods and unfavourable pathology was observed: 0.15 (95% confidence interval 0.02, 0.29). The ratios of favourable to unfavourable pathology were 1.8, 1.0, 0.66, 0.59 and 0 as the number of positive growth periods increased from 0 to 4, respectively.

CONCLUSION

While overall growth rate was not predictive of pathology favourability, there was a positive association between the number of positive growth periods and unfavourable pathology. The number of positive growth periods may be a potential parameter for malignant potential in patients undergoing active surveillance for small renal masses.

Preventing clinical progression and need for treatment in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Active surveillance is an established treatment option for men with localized, low-risk prostate cancer (CaP). It entails the postponement of immediate therapy with the option of delayed intervention upon disease progression. The rate of clinical progression and need for treatment on active surveillance is approximately 50% over 15 years. The present review summarizes recent data on current methods, attempting to prevent clinical progression.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient selection for active surveillance is the first mandatory step required to lower progression. Adherence to active surveillance protocols is critical in making sure patients are monitored well and treated early when progression occurs. Before active surveillance allocation and during active surveillance follow-up, methods involving multiparametric MRI, prostate specific antigen derivatives, biopsy factors, urinary, tissue and genetic markers can be used to prevent clinical progression and/or identify those at risk for progression. Medications such as 5α-reductase inhibitors and others might inhibit disease progression in patients on active surveillance.

SUMMARY

Active surveillance is required because of overdiagnosis, along with our inability to accurately predict individual CaP behavior. Several methods can potentially reduce the risk of CaP progression in patients with active surveillance. However, a measure of uncertainty and fear of progression will always accompany patients with active surveillance and the physicians treating them.

Longitudinal assessment of urinary PCA3 for predicting prostate cancer grade reclassification in favorable-risk men during active surveillance

Background

To assess the utility of urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) as both a one-time and longitudinal measure in men on active surveillance (AS).

Methods

The Johns Hopkins AS program monitors men with favorable-risk prostate cancer with serial PSA, digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate MRI, and prostate biopsy. Since 2007, post-DRE urinary specimens have also been routinely obtained. Men with multiple PCA3 measures obtained over ≥3 years of monitoring were included. Utility of first PCA3 score (fPCA3), subsequent PCA3 (sPCA3), and change in PCA3 were assessed for prediction of Gleason grade reclassification (GR, Gleason score>6) during follow-up.

Results

In total, 260 men met study criteria. Median time from enrollment to fPCA3 was 2 years (IQR 1–3) and from fPCA3 to sPCA3 was 5 years (IQR 4–6). During median follow-up of 6 years (IQR 5–8), 28 men (11%) underwent GR. Men with GR had higher median fPCA3 (48.0vs.24.5, p=0.007) and sPCA3 (63.5vs.36.0, p=0.002) than those without GR, while longitudinal change in PCA3 did not differ by GR status (log-normalized rate 0.07vs.0.06, p=0.53). In a multivariable model including age, risk-classification, and PSA density, fPCA3 remained significantly associated with GR (log[fPCA3] odds ratio=1.77, p=0.04).

Conclusions

PCA3 scores obtained during AS were higher in men who underwent GR, but the rate of change in PCA3 over time did not differ by GR status. PCA3 was a significant predictor of GR in a multivariable model including conventional risk factors, suggesting that PCA3 provides incremental prognostic information in the AS setting.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice

Prostate cancer remains one of the most commonly diagnosed malignancies worldwide. Early diagnosis and curative treatment seem to improve survival in men with unfavourable-risk cancers, but significant concerns exist regarding the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of men with lower-risk cancers. To this end, active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a primary management strategy in men with favourable-risk disease, and contemporary data suggest that use of AS has increased worldwide. Although published surveillance cohorts differ by protocol, reported rates of metastatic disease and prostate-cancer-specific mortality are exceedingly low in the intermediate term (5-10 years). Such outcomes seem to be closely associated with programme-specific criteria for selection, monitoring, and intervention, suggesting that AS--like other management strategies--could be individualized based on the level of risk acceptable to patients in light of their personal preferences. Additional data are needed to better establish the risks associated with AS and to identify patient-specific characteristics that could modify prognosis.

Biomarkers in localized prostate cancer

Biomarkers can improve prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Accuracy of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for early diagnosis of prostate cancer is not satisfactory, as it is an organ- but not cancer-specific biomarker, and it can be improved by using models that incorporate PSA along with other test results, such as prostate cancer antigen 3, the molecular forms of PSA (proPSA, benign PSA and intact PSA), as well as kallikreins. Recent reports suggest that new tools may be provided by metabolomic studies as shown by preliminary data on sarcosine. Additional molecular biomarkers have been identified by the use of genomics, proteomics and metabolomics. We review the most relevant biomarkers for early diagnosis and management of localized prostate cancer.

Biomarkers for prostate cancer: present challenges and future opportunities

Prostate cancer (PCa) has variable biological potential with multiple treatment options. A more personalized approach, therefore, is needed to better define men at higher risk of developing PCa, discriminate indolent from aggressive disease and improve risk stratification after treatment by predicting the likelihood of progression. This may improve clinical decision-making regarding management, improve selection for active surveillance protocols and minimize morbidity from treatment. Discovery of new biomarkers associated with prostate carcinogenesis present an opportunity to provide patients with novel genetic signatures to better understand their risk of developing PCa and help forecast their clinical course. In this review, we examine the current literature evaluating biomarkers in PCa. We also address current limitations and present several ideas for future studies.

Age is Associated with Upgrading at Confirmatory Biopsy among Men with Prostate Cancer Treated with Active Surveillance

PURPOSE

Active surveillance is increasingly recommended for older men with low risk prostate cancer. Although older men have higher all cause mortality, they also have higher prostate cancer specific mortality. We hypothesized that older age is associated with an increased risk of Gleason score upgrading at confirmatory biopsy when controlling for prostate volume.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data on 1,130 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with active surveillance from 1991 through 2011. We included 646 patients with clinical Gleason 6 or less, stage T2a or less prostate cancer, a confirmatory biopsy within 2 years of diagnostic biopsy and prostate magnetic resonance imaging before confirmatory biopsy. The primary outcome was Gleason score upgrading to 7 or greater on confirmatory biopsy. We used logistic regression to estimate the effect of age on upgrading, adjusting for magnetic resonance imaging prostate volume and other potential confounders.

RESULTS

Median age was 66 years (IQR 61-72) and median magnetic resonance imaging prostate volume was 41 ml (IQR 29-55). At confirmatory biopsy disease was upgraded in 55 of 646 patients (9%) and unchanged in 290 (45%) and biopsy was negative in 297 (46%). Older age was associated with higher odds of upgrading (adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, p=0.009). Larger prostate volume was associated with lower odds of upgrading (adjusted OR 0.80/10 ml increase, 95% CI 0.7-0.9, p=0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that older age is associated with an increased risk of misclassification on diagnostic biopsy. Older men who are interested in active surveillance should be counseled about the risks and benefits of confirmatory biopsy.

Predictive role of free prostate-specific antigen in a prospective active surveillance program (PRIAS)

PURPOSE

To evaluate the utility of percentage of free serum PSA (%fPSA) as a predictor of adverse rebiopsy findings, treatment change and radical prostatectomy (RP) findings in a prospective active surveillance (AS) trial.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the global PRIAS study with baseline %fPSA available were included. Putative baseline predictors (e.g. PSA, %fPSA) of adverse rebiopsy findings were explored using logistic regression analysis. Association of variables with treatment change and RP findings over time were evaluated with Cox regression analysis. Active treatment-free survival was assessed with a Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Of 3701 patients recruited to PRIAS, 939 had %fPSA measured at study entry. Four hundred and thirty-eight of them had %fPSA available after 1 year. Median follow-up was 17.2 months. First rebiopsy results were available for 595 patients and of those, 144 (24.2 %) had adverse findings. A total of 283 (30.1 %) patients discontinued surveillance, of those 181 (64.0 %) due to protocol-based reasons. Although median %fPSA values were significantly lower in patients who changed treatment, according to the multivariate regression analysis, initial %fPSA value was not predictive for treatment change or adverse rebiopsy findings. However, the probability of discontinuing AS was significantly lower in patients with "favourable" initial %fPSA characteristics and %fPSA during follow-up (initial %fPSA ≥15 and positive %fPSA velocity) compared to those with "adverse" %fPSA characteristics (initial %fPSA <15 and negative %fPSA velocity).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic %fPSA provides no additional prognostic value when compared to other predictors already in use in AS protocols. However, %fPSA velocity during surveillance may aid in predicting the probability for future treatment change.

Circulating biomarkers for discriminating indolent from aggressive disease in prostate cancer active surveillance

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review research on the use of circulating biomarkers to predict unfavorable tumor pathology in the setting of active surveillance, or in clinical contexts that are informative for active surveillance, such as men with low-risk prostate cancer evaluated for upgrading or upstaging at surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Biomarkers have been evaluated in serum, plasma, urine, and expressed prostatic secretions. Only a small number of biomarkers have been evaluated in multiple studies: %free prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA velocity, PSA doubling time, proPSA, PCA3, TMPRSS2-ERG. Single studies with relevance to active surveillance have evaluated microRNAs, circulating tumor cells, and exosomes. The most consistent significant associations with unfavorable tumor pathology have been with %free PSA. Associations with [-2]proPSA and Prostate Health Index have also been consistent; however, three of four studies come from the same active surveillance patient cohort.

SUMMARY

Circulating biomarkers represent a promising approach to identify men with apparently low-risk biopsy pathology, but who harbor potentially aggressive tumors unsuitable for active surveillance. Research is still at an early stage; existing biomarkers need rigorous validation with consistent methodology, and additional biomarkers need to be evaluated. Successful clinical translation would reduce the frequency of surveillance biopsies, and may enhance acceptance of active surveillance.

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.

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 Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, the New Zealand Society of Pathologists, and the Prostate Cancer Foundation

CONTEXT

Prostate cancer remains a significant public health problem. Recent publications of randomized trials and the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations have drawn attention to overtreatment of localized, low-risk prostate cancer. Active surveillance, in which patients undergo regular visits with serum prostate-specific antigen tests and repeat prostate biopsies, rather than aggressive treatment with curative intent, may address overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer. It is apparent that a greater awareness of the critical role of pathologists in determining eligibility for active surveillance is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To review the state of current knowledge about the role of active surveillance in the management of prostate cancer and to provide a multidisciplinary report focusing on pathologic parameters important to the successful identification of patients likely to succeed with active surveillance, to determine the role of molecular tests in increasing the safety of active surveillance, and to provide future directions.

DESIGN

Systematic review of literature on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, pathologic parameters important for appropriate stratification, and issues regarding interobserver reproducibility. Expert panels were created to delineate the fundamental questions confronting the clinical and pathologic aspects of management of men on active surveillance.

RESULTS

Expert panelists identified pathologic parameters important for management and the related diagnostic and reporting issues. Consensus recommendations were generated where appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

Active surveillance is an important management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Vital to this process is the critical role pathologic parameters have in identifying appropriate candidates for active surveillance. These findings need to be reproducible and consistently reported by surgical pathologists with accurate pathology reporting.