Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer

Describing perspectives of health care professionals on active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer

Background

Over the last decade, active surveillance has proven to be a safe approach for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Although active surveillance presents several advantages for both patients and the health care system, all eligible patients do not adopt this approach. Our goal was to evaluate the factors that influence physicians to recommend active surveillance and the barriers that impact adherence to this approach.

Methods

Focus groups (n = 5) were held with physicians who provided care for men with low-risk prostate cancer and had engaged in conversations with men and their families about active surveillance. The experience of health care professionals (HCPs) was captured to understand their decisions in proposing active surveillance and to reveal the barriers and facilitators that affect the adherence to this approach. A content analysis was performed on the verbatim transcripts from the sessions.

Results

Although physicians agreed that active surveillance is a suitable approach for low-risk prostate cancer patients, they were concerned about the rapidly evolving and non-standardized guidelines for patient follow-up. They pointed out the need for additional tools to appropriately identify proper patients for whom active surveillance is the best option. Urologists and radiation-oncologists were keen to collaborate with each other, but the role of general practitioner remained controversial once patients were referred to a specialist.

Conclusions

Integration of more reliable tools and/or markers in addition to more specific guidelines for patient follow-up would increase the confidence of both patients and physicians in the choice of active surveillance.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3273-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Active surveillance: a review of risk-based, dynamic monitoring

Active surveillance (AS) is an important treatment modality aiming to reduce the overtreatment of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) who have a low risk of disease reclassification. After enrolling in AS patients are actively monitored using different diagnostic tests (e.g., prostate specific-antigen, digital rectal exams (DREs), medical imaging, and prostate biopsies). Biopsy is the most burdensome test. We aimed to review schedules for monitoring men on AS. We compare fixed versus risk based dynamic monitoring, where biopsies are scheduled during follow-up based on dynamic risk predictions. Several prediction models and scheduling techniques have been published. All proposed risk prediction models need further external validation. We conclude that risk based, dynamic monitoring is a promising new strategy to further reduce overtreatment in PCa patients.

[Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer]

Autopsy studies have confirmed the high prevalence of latent prostate cancer; however, only a certain portion of patients require definite treatment. Active surveillance is one of the treatment options which, according to national and international guidelines, should be offered to patients with newly diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer. Prostate cancer-specific survival is high in these patients; therefore, curative treatment, such as radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy may be initially deferred in order to avoid therapy-related side effects. In order to qualify for active surveillance, strict inclusion criteria have to be met; nevertheless, the reliable identification of low-risk prostate cancer patients is not always possible. Patients under active surveillance are followed up regularly with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, digital rectal examination (DRE) and repeat prostate biopsies. Due to the heterogeneity of primary prostate tumors precise molecular diagnostic techniques could allow individualized treatment strategies in the future.

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.

MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: a review of technique and results

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is of interest for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer and mpMRI-targeted biopsies are being used increasingly in clinical practice. Target acquisition is performed using a range of magnet strengths and varying combinations of anatomical and functional sequences. Target identification at the time of biopsy can be carried out in the MRI scanner (in-bore biopsy) or, more commonly, the MRI-target is biopsied under ultrasonographic guidance. Many groups use cognitive or visual registration, whereby the biopsy target is identified on MRI and ultrasonography is subsequently used to direct the needle to the same location. Other groups use registration software to show prebiopsy MRI data on real-time ultrasonography. The reporting of histological results in MRI-targeted biopsy studies varies greatly. The most useful reports compare the detection of clinically significant disease in standard cores versus mpMRI-targeted cores in the same cohort of men, as recommended by the STAndards of Reporting for MRI-Targeted biopsy studies (START) consensus panel. Further evidence is needed before an mpMRI-targeted strategy can be recommended as the standard intervention for men at risk of prostate cancer.

Future prospects in the diagnosis and management of localized prostate cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the commonest visceral cancer in men worldwide. Introduction of serum PSA as a highly specific biomarker for prostatic diseases has led to a dramatic increase in the diagnosis of early stage PCa in last decades. Guidelines underline that benefits as well as risks and squeals of early diagnosis and treatment should be discussed with patients. There are several new biomarkers (Pro-PSA, PCA-3 test, and TMPRSS2-ERG) available on the market but new ones are awaited in order to improve specificity and sensitivity. Investigators have also focused on identifying and isolating the gene, or genes, responsible for PCa. Current definitive treatment options for clinically localized PCa with functional and oncological success rates up to 95% include surgery (radical prostatectomy), external-beam radiation therapy, and interstitial radiation therapy (brachytherapy). Potential complications of overdiagnosis and overtreatment have resulted in arguments about screening and introduced a new management approach called "active surveillance." Improvements in diagnostic techniques, especially multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, significantly ameliorated the accuracy of tumor localization and local staging. These advances will further support focal therapies as emerging treatment alternatives for localized PCa. As a conclusion, revolutionary changes in the diagnosis and management of PCa are awaited in the near future.