Austin Health

Title
Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines
Publication Date
2016-03
Author(s)
Bruinsma, Sophie M
Bangma, Chris H
Carroll, Peter R
Leapman, Michael S
Rannikko, Antti
Petrides, Neophytos
Weerakoon, Mahesha
Bokhorst, Leonard P
Roobol, Monique
Ehdaie, Behfar
Fahey, Michael
Filson, Christopher
Frydenberg, Mark
Gnanapragasam, Vincent
Kakehi, Yoshiyuki
Kattan, Mike
Klotz, Laurence
Lophatananon, Artitaya
Malouf, David
Moore, Caroline
Muir, Kenneth
Parker, Chris
Pickles, Tom
Sanda, Martin
Steyerberg, Ewout
Trock, Bruce
Valdagni, Riccardo
van der Kwast, Theo
Villers, Arnauld
Wicklin Gillespie, Theresa
Zhang, Liying
Corporate Author(s)
Movember GAP3 consortium
Subject
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Prostatic Neoplasms
Type of document
Journal Article
DOI
10.1038/nrurol.2015.313
Abstract
In the past decade active surveillance (AS) of men with localized prostate cancer has become an increasingly popular management option, and a range of clinical guidelines have been published on this topic. Existing guidelines regarding AS for prostate cancer vary widely, but predominantly state that the most suitable patients for AS are those with pretreatment clinical stage T1c or T2 tumours, serum PSA levels <10 ng/ml, biopsy Gleason scores of 6 or less, a maximum of one or two tumour-positive biopsy core samples and/or a maximum of 50% of cancer per core sample. Following initiation of an AS programme, most guidelines recommend serial serum PSA measurements, digital rectal examinations and surveillance biopsies to check for and identify pathological indications of tumour progression. Definitions of disease reclassification and progression differ among guidelines and multiple criteria for initiation of definitive treatment are proposed. The variety of descriptions of criteria for clinically insignificant prostate cancer indicates a lack of consensus on optimal AS and intervention thresholds. A single set of guidelines are needed in order to reduce variations in clinical practice and to optimize clinical decision-making. To enable truly evidence-based guidelines, further research that combines existing evidence, while also gathering information from more long-term studies is needed.
Link
Citation
Nature Reviews Urology 2016; 13: 151-167
Jornal Title
Nature Reviews Urology

Files:

NameSizeformatDescriptionLink