Abstract
The following chapter contains a summary of the differences and areas of overlap that exists between the two main prostate preserving strategies for patients with low- to moderate-risk prostate cancer, namely, active surveillance and focal therapy.
Active surveillance (AS) and focal therapy (FT) – directing therapy to the cancer (plus a margin) rather than to the entire prostate – share considerable common ground. Both embrace as a core belief that, given an acceptable oncological risk, men, on balance, would prefer to keep their prostates rather than surrender them to willing surgeons or radiotherapists.
Both seek to identify a group of low-risk men who can safely avoid radical therapy at the whole-gland level.
Prostate FT is a field with constant evolution both in technological application and understanding of biological processes. Patient selection is the cornerstone in any FT strategy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(1):126–31.
Andriole GL, Bostwick DG, Brawley OW, Gomella LG, Marberger M, Montorsi F, Pettaway CA, Tammela TL, Teloken C, Tindall DJ, Somerville MC, Wilson TH, Fowler IL, Rittmaster RS, REDUCE Study Group. Effect of dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(13):1192–202.
Fleshner N, Gomella LG, Cookson MS, Finelli A, Evans A, Taneja SS, Lucia MS, Wolford E, Somerville MC, Rittmaster R, REDEEM Study Group. Delay in the progression of low-risk prostate cancer: rationale and design of the reduction by dutasteride of clinical progression events in expectant management (REDEEM) trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28(6):763–9.
Kepner GR, Kepner JV. Transperineal prostate biopsy: analysis of a uniform core sampling pattern that yields data on tumor volume limits in negative biopsies. Theor Biol Med Model. 2010;7:23. doi:10.1186/1742-4682-7-23.
Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Drost FH, van Leenders GJ, Bokhorst LP, Bangma CH, Schoots IG. Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017. doi: 10.1111/bju.13836. [Epub ahead of print].
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, ProtecT Study Group, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415–24. Epub 2016 Sep 14.
Kirkham AP, Emberton M, Allen C. How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate? Eur Urol. 2006;50(6):1163–74.
Villers A, Lemaitre L, Haffner J, Puech P. Current status of MRI for the diagnosis, staging and prognosis of prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy and active surveillance. Curr Opin Urol. 2009;19(3):274–82.
Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, Haber GP, Leroy X, Jones JS, Villers A. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int. 2011;108(8 Pt 2):E171–8.
Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, Marconi L, et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017. pii: S0302-2838(17)30115-X.
Hansen NL, Barrett T, Koo B, et al. The influence of prostate-specific antigen density on positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason score 7–10 prostate cancer in a repeat biopsy setting. BJU Int. 2016;119(5):724–30. doi:10.1111/bju.13619. [Epub ahead of print].
Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, et al. Combination of PI-RADS score and PSA density predicts biopsy outcome in biopsy naive patients. BJU Int. 2017;119:225–33.
Bratan F, Niaf E, Melodelima C, et al. Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:2019–29.
Kim JY, Kim SH, Kim YH, Lee HJ, Kim MJ, Choi MS. Low-risk prostate cancer: the accuracy of multiparametric MR imaging for detection. Radiology. 2014;271:435–44.
Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68:438–50.
Wegelin O, van Melick HH, Hooft L, et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol. 2017;71:517–31.
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, et al. PROMIS study group. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389:815–22.
Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T, Arumainayagam N, Lecornet E, Freeman A, Hawkes D, Barratt DC, Emberton M. Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol. 2011;186(2):458–64.
Wolters T, Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Scarpelli M, Roobol MJ, van den Bergh RC, van Leeuwen PJ, Hoedemaeker RF, van Leenders GJ, Schröder FH, van der Kwast TH. Comparison of incidentally detected prostate cancer with screen-detected prostate cancer treated by prostatectomy. Prostate. 2012;72(1):108–15.
Gómez Rivas J, Alvarez-Maestro M, Czarniecki M, Czarniecki S, Rodriguez Socarras M, Loeb S. Negatives biopsies with rising prostate specific antigen. What to do? EMJ Urol. 2017;5(1):76–82.
Loeb S, Sanda MG, Broyles DL, Shin SS, Bangma CH, Wei JT, et al. The prostate health index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;193(4):1163–9.
Prostate Cancer Early Detection. National Cancer Comprehensive Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Version 2. 2016. Available online: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate_detection.pdf. Accessed on 9 Sept 2016.
Gnanapragasam VJ, Burling K, George A, Stearn S, Warren A, Barrett T, et al. The prostate health index adds predictive value to multi-parametric MRI in detecting significant prostate cancers in a repeat biopsy population. Sci Rep. 2016;6:35364. doi:10.1038/srep35364.
de Kok JB, Verhaegh GW, Roelofs RW, Hessels D, Kiemeney LA, Aalders TW, et al. DD3(PCA3), a very sensitive and specific marker to detect prostate tumors. Cancer Res. 2002;62:2695–8.
McGrath S, Christidis D, Perera M, Hong SK, Manning T, Vela I, et al. Prostate cancer biomarkers: are we hitting the mark? Prostate Int. 2016;4(4):130–5.
ConfirmMDx for Prostate Cancer. mdxhealth [online], http://mdxhealth.com/confirmmdxprostate-cancer. 2015.
GD S, Van Neste L, Delvenne P, Delrée P, et al. Clinical utility of an epigenetic assay to detect occult prostate cancer in histopathologically negative biopsies: results of the MATLOC study. J Urol. 2013;189(3):1110–6.
The Prostate Core Mitomic Test™ Now You Can Know. MDNA life sciences [online], http:// www.mitomicsinc.com/prostate-core-mitomictest/. 2015.
Robinson K, Creed J, Reguly B, Powell C, Wittock R, Klein D, et al. Accurate prediction of repeat prostate biopsy outcomes by a mitochondrial DNA deletion assay. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010;13(2):126–31.
Klotz L, Polascik TJ. Low-risk and very-low-risk prostate cancer: is there a role for focal therapy in the era of active surveillance? Yes, the two approaches complement each other. Oncology (Williston Park). 2014;28:950–c3.
Tay KJ, Scheltema MJ, Ahmed HU, Barret E, et al. Patient selection for prostate focal therapy in the era of active surveillance: an International Delphi Consensus Project. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;00:1–6.
Moschini M, Spahn M, Mattei A, Cheville J, Karnes RJ. Incorporation of tissue-based genomic biomarkers into localized prostate cancer clinics. BMC Med. 2016;14:67. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0613-7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rivas, J.G., Emberton, M. (2018). Tissue Preservation: Active Surveillance and Focal Therapy as Complimentary Strategies. In: Klotz, L. (eds) Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62710-6_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62710-6_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62709-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62710-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)