Roderick C.N. van den Bergh

EAU–ESTRO–SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

OBJECTIVE To present a summary of the 2016 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) - European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) - International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2013-2015). The guidelines were updated and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS BRCA2 mutations have been added as risk factors for early and aggressive disease. In addition to the Gleason score, the five-tier 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system should now be provided. Systematic screening is still not recommended. Instead, an individual risk-adapted strategy following a detailed discussion and taking into account the patients wishes and life expectancy must be considered. An early prostate-specific antigen test, the use of a risk calculator, or one of the promising biomarker tools are being investigated and might be able to limit the overdetection of insignificant PCa. Breaking the link between diagnosis and treatment may lower the overtreatment risk. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging using standardised reporting cannot replace systematic biopsy, but robustly nested within the diagnostic work-up, it has a key role in local staging. Active surveillance always needs to be discussed with very low-risk patients. The place of surgery in high-risk disease and the role of lymph node dissection have been clarified, as well as the management of node-positive patients. Radiation therapy using dose-escalated intensity-modulated technology is a key treatment modality with recent improvement in the outcome based on increased doses as well as combination with hormonal treatment. Moderate hypofractionation is safe and effective, but longer-term data are still lacking. Brachytherapy represents an effective way to increase the delivered dose. Focal therapy remains experimental while cryosurgery and HIFU are still lacking long-term convincing results. CONCLUSIONS The knowledge in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2016 EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for the use in clinical practice. These are the first PCa guidelines endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office and online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/). PATIENT SUMMARY The 2016 EAU-STRO-IOG Prostate Cancer (PCa) Guidelines present updated information on the diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer. In Northern and Western Europe, the number of men diagnosed with PCa has been on the rise. This may be due to an increase in opportunistic screening, but other factors may also be involved (eg, diet, sexual behaviour, low exposure to ultraviolet radiation). We propose that men who are potential candidates for screening should be engaged in a discussion with their clinician (also involving their families and caregivers) so that an informed decision may be made as part of an individualised risk-adapted approach.

Outcomes of Men with Screen-Detected Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance Who Were Managed Expectantly

BACKGROUND The incidence of small, localised, well-differentiated prostate cancer (PCa) is increasing, mainly as a result of screening. Many of these cancers will not progress, and radical therapy may lead to substantial overtreatment. Active surveillance (AS) has emerged as an alternative. OBJECTIVE To retrospectively validate the currently used criteria for eligibility for AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS For this cohort study, data from 616 men who were diagnosed with PCa between 1994 and 2007 at a mean age of 66.3 yr in four centres of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) were combined. All patients fit the criteria for AS (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] < or = 10.0 ng/ml, PSA-density < 0.2 ng/ml per ml, stage T1C/T2, Gleason score < or = 3 + 3 = 6, and < or = 2 positive biopsy cores), and initially they were managed expectantly. Median follow-up was 3.91 yr. MEASUREMENTS Disease specific-, overall-, and treatment-free survival were studied. Present PSA characteristics were assessed and also compared between men who were switching to deferred active therapy during follow-up and men remaining untreated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The calculated (Kaplan-Meier) 10-yr PCa-specific survival (21 patients at risk) was 100%, which sharply contrasted with 77% overall survival. Men still alive showed favourable PSA characteristics. Although the calculated 10-yr treatment-free survival was only 43%, objective signs of progression often did not indicate the shift to radical treatment. The cohort consisted of men on AS and those on watchful waiting (WW); information on comorbidity or psychological distress was not available. CONCLUSIONS AS seems justified in selected men with screen-detected PCa. Prospective protocol-based AS programs are necessary to optimise selection criteria and to find the appropriate trigger points for switching to active therapy. Possible negative psychological reactions with AS against improved quality of life by withholding side-effects from radical treatment should be considered.

A Critical Analysis of the Tumor Volume Threshold for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Using a Data Set of a Randomized Screening Trial

PURPOSE The identification of clinically insignificant prostate cancer could help avoid overtreatment. Current criteria for insignificant prostate cancer use a tumor volume threshold of less than 0.5 ml for the index tumor. In this study we reassess this tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using an independent data set. MATERIALS AND METHODS The rate of insignificant prostate cancer was calculated by modeling lifetime risk estimates of prostate cancer diagnosis in screened and nonscreened participants in a randomized prostate cancer screening trial. Using lifetime risk estimates 50.8% of screen detected prostate cancer was calculated to be clinically insignificant and the 49.2% largest tumor volume of 325 prostatectomy specimens was used to determine the threshold tumor volume for insignificant prostate cancer. Because stage and grade represent the strongest determinants of cancer aggressiveness, we also calculated the tumor volume threshold for insignificant cancer after the selection of patients with organ confined prostate cancer without Gleason pattern 4/5. The analyses were performed for total tumor volume and for index tumor volume. RESULTS The minimum threshold tumor volume of the index tumor and total tumor was 0.55 and 0.70 ml, respectively. After accounting for tumor stage and grade we obtained a threshold volume for the index tumor and total tumor of 1.3 and 2.5 ml, respectively. CONCLUSIONS We confirmed the original value of the index tumor volume threshold of 0.5 ml for insignificant prostate cancer, and we demonstrated that clinically insignificant prostate cancer may include index Gleason score 6, pT2 tumors with volumes up to at least 1.3 ml. These results suggest a reconsideration of current methods and nomograms used for pretreatment risk assessment.

Anxiety and Distress During Active Surveillance for Early Prostate Cancer

Patients on active surveillance (AS) for early prostate cancer (PC) may experience feelings of anxiety and distress while living with “untreated” cancer. In this study, these feelings were quantified, and their associations with various psychologic, medical, demographic, and decision‐related factors were assessed.

A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND Screening for prostate cancer (PC) is controversial due to uncertainties about its efficiency. OBJECTIVE We aimed to develop strategies to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies while still detecting most clinically important PC cases. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In 1850 men initially screened and biopsied (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] value > or =3.0 ng/ml) in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, we calculated both the probability of having a positive lateralized sextant biopsy [P(biop+)] and the probability of having an indolent cancer [P(ind)] if PC was detected at biopsy (n=541). Analyses of repeat screening included 225 cancers in 1201 men. INTERVENTIONS The P(biop+) was based on applying a logistic regression model that included ultrasound volume, digital rectal exam, and transrectal ultrasound in addition to the PSA value. The P(ind) was based on a recently validated nomogram. MEASUREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS: At initial screening the fraction of positive biopsies was 29% (541 of 1850). Applying an additional P(biop+) cut-off of 12.5% implied that 613 of the 1850 men (33%) would not have been biopsied. This would result in an increase in the positive predictive value (PPV) to 38% (468 of 1237). At repeat screening a similar P(biop+) cut-off would result in an increase in the PPV from 19% (225 of 1201) to 25% (188 of 760). Thirteen percent of PC cases would not have been diagnosed, of which 70% (initial screening) and 81% (repeat screening) could be considered as potentially indolent. None of the deadly PC cases would have been missed. A PSA cut-off of > or =4.0 ng/ml resulted in similar numbers of biopsied cases saved but considerably higher numbers of missed diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS An individualized screening algorithm using other available prebiopsy information in addition to PSA level can result in a considerable reduction of unnecessary biopsies. Very few important PC cases, for which diagnosis at a subsequent screening visit might be too late for treatment with curative intent, would be missed.

Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre ‘Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance’ study

Study Type – Therapy (prospective cohort)
Level of Evidence 2b

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer in 2007: Part 1: PSA and PSA Kinetics

OBJECTIVE This is the first of two review papers attempting to clarify the best way to detect prostate cancer (PCa) in 2007. Screening for PCa has not yet been shown to lower PCa mortality. Still, opportunistic screening is wide spread in Europe and in most other parts of the world. METHODS Current literature and data from screening studies are reviewed and discussed. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been and remains one of the corner stones of early detection of PCa. Traditionally used cut-off values cannot be applied in an uncritical fashion after it was shown that a significant amount of overdiagnosis and that large proportions of cancers and poorly differentiated cancers are present in the low PSA ranges. The paper addresses the continued relevance of PSA cut-off values. The diagnostic value of PSA velocity is reviewed in conjunction with PSA cut-off values and as a possible replacement of total PSA. A need for more selective screening in the low PSA ranges is pointed out. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The data show that men presenting initially with PSA values below 1 do not have to be rescreened for a period of 8 yr. In the PSA range 1-2.9 ng/ml, new parameters are needed that improve specificity and are selective for screening for aggressive lesions. PSA velocity so far has not been shown to be useful in the early detection of PCa but may be useful in detecting aggressive PCa selectively. For the time being, it seems sensible to continue using PSA cut-off values such as 3.0 or 4.0 ng/ml provided overtreatment is decreased by using available nomograms.

Performance of the Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 (PCA3) Gene and Prostate-Specific Antigen in Prescreened Men: Exploring the Value of PCA3 for a First-line Diagnostic Test

BACKGROUND The performance characteristics of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a diagnostic test for prostate cancer (PCa) are poor. The performance of the PCa antigen 3 (PCA3) gene as a primary diagnostic is unknown. OBJECTIVE Assess the value of PCA3 as a first-line diagnostic test. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS Participants included men aged 63-75 who were invited for rescreening in the period from September 2007 to February 2009 within the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, Rotterdam section. INTERVENTIONS Lateral sextant biopsies were performed if the serum PSA value was > or =3.0 ng/ml and/or the PCA3 score was > or =10. MEASUREMENTS Measurements included distribution and correlation of PSA value and PCA3 score and their relation to the number of cases and the characteristics of PCa detected. Additional value of PCA3 was included in men with previous negative biopsy and/or PSA <3.0 ng/ml. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS In 721 men, all biopsied, 122 PCa cases (16.9%) were detected. Correlation between PSA and PCA3 is poor (Spearman rank correlation: ρ=0.14; p<0.0001). A PSA > or =3.0 ng/ml misses 64.7% of the total PCa that can be detected with the sextant biopsy technique and 57.9% of serious PCa (T2a or higher and/or Gleason grade > or =4, n=19), and 68.2% of biopsies could have been avoided; the respective data for PCA3 > or =35 are 32%, 26.3%, and 51.7%. Performance of PCA3 in men with low PSA (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.63) and/or previous negative biopsy (AUC: 0.68) is unclear but has limited reliability due to small numbers. CONCLUSIONS PCA3 as a first-line screening test shows improvement of the performance characteristics and identification of serious disease compared with PSA in this prescreened population.

Review – Prostate CancerEarly Detection of Prostate Cancer in 2007: Part 1: PSA and PSA Kinetics

OBJECTIVE This is the first of two review papers attempting to clarify the best way to detect prostate cancer (PCa) in 2007. Screening for PCa has not yet been shown to lower PCa mortality. Still, opportunistic screening is wide spread in Europe and in most other parts of the world. METHODS Current literature and data from screening studies are reviewed and discussed. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been and remains one of the corner stones of early detection of PCa. Traditionally used cut-off values cannot be applied in an uncritical fashion after it was shown that a significant amount of overdiagnosis and that large proportions of cancers and poorly differentiated cancers are present in the low PSA ranges. The paper addresses the continued relevance of PSA cut-off values. The diagnostic value of PSA velocity is reviewed in conjunction with PSA cut-off values and as a possible replacement of total PSA. A need for more selective screening in the low PSA ranges is pointed out. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The data show that men presenting initially with PSA values below 1 do not have to be rescreened for a period of 8 yr. In the PSA range 1-2.9 ng/ml, new parameters are needed that improve specificity and are selective for screening for aggressive lesions. PSA velocity so far has not been shown to be useful in the early detection of PCa but may be useful in detecting aggressive PCa selectively. For the time being, it seems sensible to continue using PSA cut-off values such as 3.0 or 4.0 ng/ml provided overtreatment is decreased by using available nomograms.

Novel Tools to Improve Patient Selection and Monitoring on Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT Active surveillance (AS) is an alternative to initial radical treatment of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Current criteria for selection and follow-up incorrectly exclude some patients eligible for AS and misclassify some who actually harbour significant disease. Better prediction of cancer behaviour at diagnosis would allow less strict monitoring and may improve acceptance of AS. OBJECTIVE To review and critically analyse the literature on the value of novel clinical tools for patient selection and monitoring on AS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A comprehensive search of the PubMed database until July 10, 2013, was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement guidelines. Studies assessing novel markers and diagnostics for patient selection for AS and follow-up during AS were included. Studies analysing only classic clinical parameters used in current protocols (prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, number of (positive) prostate biopsies, percentage malignant tissue, Gleason score) were excluded. This review focuses only on the AS setting and not on predicting insignificant disease in general. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Of 787 studies on AS, 30 were included in this review: 14 on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 5 on serum markers, 5 on urinary markers, 4 on histopathology markers, and 2 on germline genetic markers. Several of these markers improve the prediction of tumour volume, tumour grade, or time to active treatment. MRI has a high specificity for low-risk PCa; new serum markers are associated with unfavourable disease. In none of the studies was the new marker used as the primary decision tool. Long-term outcome measures such as mortality were not assessed. The definition of indolent PCa is disputable. CONCLUSIONS Imaging and serum markers may improve future patient selection for AS and follow-up during AS. Prospective studies should aim to further evaluate the clinical utility of these new markers with respect to longer term outcomes of AS. PATIENT SUMMARY We searched the literature for articles reporting new ways to safely monitor low-risk prostate cancer for patients who have not had radical treatment. We found 30 articles. The most promising tools appear to be magnetic resonance imaging scans and various new blood markers. These may be used in the future within active surveillance regimens.