Prostate Cancer Treatment on the Basis of an Individual Risk Profile; Can we Reduce Overtreatment?

• Eelco R.P. Collette

  Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands

• Monique J. Roobol

  Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands

 Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most prevalent cancer in male population with an incidence rate of 93 per 100.000 men in Europe and is the sixth leading cause of cancer related deaths in men. In the last two decades the incidence of PCa has increased, which is related to widespread prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening and increased life expectancy. Mortality rates of prostate cancer have been reduced due to improvement in treatment and/or the widespread screening activities. Major down sides of screening are the potential risks of overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment. Approximately 50% of PCa cases detected through screening are potentially overdiagnosed and hence do not require active treatment. However, in clinical practice men with a potentially non-life-threatening cancer (indolent cancer) are often treated actively resulting in unnecessary suffering from serious side effects coinciding with active treatment. The way out of this dilemma is two-fold. First, the actual diagnosis could be delayed or even avoided and second, radical treatment could be delayed or avoided for patients with low-risk PCa. To better predict the presence of a (potentially indolent) prostate cancer nomograms have been developed. These multivariate prediction tools can be of aid in avoiding unnecessary biopsies reducing overdiagnosis, or identifying potentially indolent prostate cancer after diagnosis and hence adapt the treatment strategy. In this expert opinion we discuss the available tools and their performance in reducing the unwanted side effects of prostate cancer screening. In addition, we provide an overview of strategies concerning optimisation and individualisation of treatment, to reduce overtreatment of prostate cancer.

Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61: 69-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.20107

Draisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ, et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95(12): 868-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/95.12.868

Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and Prostate-Cancer Mortality in a Randomized European Study. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1320-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0810084

Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate-Cancer Mortality at 11 Years of Follow-up. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 981-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1113135

Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, Bergdahl S, et al. Mortality results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11(8): 725-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70146-7

Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(7): 1117-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.26.0133

Welch HG, Albertsen PC. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101(19): 1325-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp278

Potosky AL, Davis WW, Hoffman RM, et al. Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96(18): 1358-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh259

Korfage IJ, Essink-Bot ML, Borsboom GJ, et al. Five-year follow-up of health-related quality of life after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. Int J Cancer 2005; 116(2): 291-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.21043

Johansson E, Steineck G, Holmberg L, et al. Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 891-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70162-0

Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Roehrborn CG, et al. An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools. Cancer 2008; 113(11): 3075-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23908

Shariat SF, Kattan MW, Vickers AJ, et al. Critical review of prostate cancer predictive tools. Future Oncol 2009; 5(10): 1555-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/fon.09.121

Zhu X, Albertsen PC, Andriole GL, et al. Risk-based prostate cancer screening. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 652-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.029

Vickers AJ. Prediction models in cancer care. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61: 315-326.

The University of Texas Health Science Center

Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, et al. Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 529-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj131

Eyre SJ, Ankerst DP, Wei JT, et al. Validation in a multiple urology practice cohort of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial calculator for predicting prostate cancer detection. J Urol 2009; 182: 2653-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.056

Hernandez DJ, Han M, Humphreys EB, et al. Predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy: comparison of a novel logistic regression-based model, the prostate cancer risk calculator, and prostate-specific antigen level alone. BJU Int 2009; 103: 609-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08127.x

Nguyen CT, Yu C, Moussa A, Kattan MW, et al. Performance of prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator in a contemporary cohort screened for prostate cancer and diagnosed by extended prostate biopsy. J Urol 2010; 183: 529-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.007

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Nam RK, Toi A, Klotz LH, et al. Assessing individual risk for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 3582-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.10.6450

Nam RK, Kattan MW, Chin JL, et al. Prospective multi-institutional study evaluating the performance of prostate cancer risk calculators. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2959-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.32.6371

SWOP – The Prostate Cancer Research Foundation

Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW, Kranse R, et al. A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010; 57: 79-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.08.025

Kranse R, Roobol M, Schroder FH. A graphical device to represent the outcomes of a logistic regression analysis. Prostate 2008; 68(15): 1674-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pros.20840

Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, et al. Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol 2007; 177: 107-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.068

Oliveira M, Marques V, Carvalho AP, et al. Head-to-head comparison of two online nomograms for prostate biopsy outcome prediction. BJU Int 2011; 107: 1780-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09727.x

Cavadas V, Osorio L, Sabell F, et al. Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculators: a performance comparison in a contemporary screened cohort. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 551-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.023

Trottier G, Roobol MJ, Lawrentschuk N, et al. Comparison of risk calculators from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial and the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer in a contemporary Canadian cohort. BJU Int 2011; 108: 237-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10207.x

Van Vugt HA, Roobol MJ, Kranse R, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer in unscreened men: external validation of a risk calculator. Eur J Cancer 2011; 47: 903-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.11.012

Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, et al. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 2007; 178: 14-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.135

Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, et al. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2180

Stattin P, Holmberg E, Johansson JE, et al. Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102(13): 950-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq154

Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Zhu X, et al. Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 110: 1672-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11434.x

Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011; 59(1): 61-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.039

Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, De Vries SH, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancers detected in three subsequent rounds of a screening trial: characteristics, PSA doubling times, and outcome. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 1244-1250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.11.053

Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(17): 2810-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.7311

Whitson JM, Porten SP, Hilton JF, et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185(5): 1656-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.12.042

Etzioni R, Gulati R, Tsodikov A, et al. The prostate cancer conundrum revisited: Treatment changes and prostate cancer mortality declines. Cancer 2012; 118(23): 5955-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27594

Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Rannikko A, et al. Predictors of unfavourable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance program. Eur Urol 2012; 61(2): 370-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.06.027

Van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 1560-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.05.011

Raaijmakers R, Kirkels WJ, Roobol MJ, et al. Complication rates and risk factors of 5802 transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsies of the prostate within a population-based screening program. Urology 2002; 60: 826-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01958-1

Loeb S, van den Heuvel S, Zhu X, et al. Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. Eur Urol 2012; 61(6): 1110-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.12.058

Roobol MJ, Zhu X, Schröder FH, et al. A Calculator for Prostate Cancer Risk 4 Years After an Initially Negative Screen: Findings from ERSPC Rotterdam. Eur Urol 2012.

Xia J, Trock BJ, Cooperberg MR, et al. Prostate Cancer Mortality following Active Surveillance versus Immediate Radical Prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18(19): 5471-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1502

Ankerst DP, Boeck A, Freedland SJ, et al. Evaluating the PCPT risk calculator in ten international biopsy cohorts: results from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group. World J Urol 2012; 30(2): 181-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0818-5

Van Vugt HA, Kranse R, Steyerberg EW, et al. Prospective validation of a risk calculator which calculates the probability of a positive prostate biopsy in a contemporary clinical cohort. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48(12): 1809-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.02.002

Van Vugt HA, Roobol MJ, Busstra M, et al. Compliance with biopsy recommendations of a prostate cancer risk calculator. BJU Int 2012; 109(10): 1480-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10611.x

Van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2007; 52(6): 1560-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.05.011

Van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol 2009; 55(1): 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.007

Van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics in clinical decision-making during active surveillance for early prostate cancer - a review. Eur Urol 2008; 54(3): 505-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.040

Choudhury AD, Eeles R, Freedland SJ, et al. The role of genetic markers in the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2012; 62(4): 577-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.054

Bangma CH, Bul M, Roobol M. The Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance study. Curr Opin Urol 2012; 22(3): 216-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e328351dcc7

Van Vugt HA, Roobol MJ, van der Poel HG, et al. Selecting men diagnosed with prostate cancer for active surveillance using a risk calculator: a prospective impact study. BJU Int 2012; 110(2): 180-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10679.x

Stricker PD, Frydenberg M, Kneebone A, et al. Informed prostate cancer risk-adjusted testing: a new paradigm. BJU Int 2012; 110(Suppl 4): 30-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11621.x

• PDF