Prostate Carcinoma. Current Dilemma of Urooncology. How to Help the Needed and not to Harm the Others

Česká verzia

Authors: M. Hanuš ¹; M. Matoušková ¹; L. Dušek ²
Authors place of work: Urocentrum Praha ¹; Institut biostatistiky a analýz MU, Brno ²
Published in the journal: Klin Onkol 2013; 26(3): 170-178
Category: Review

Summary

There is a remarkably rising incidence of histologically proven prostate cancer since the introduction of prostatic specific antigen (PSA) test into clinical practice. TNM classification of these tumors in about 50% of cases is in categories T1,2 N0M0, Gleason score ≤ 7 and PSA level under 10 ug/ l (Graph 1). Such tumors are considered low risk and therefore conservative approach seems to be acceptable therapeutic variant. In spite of non‑surgical approach, patients with the so‑ called early stage diagnosed disease have been almost only indicated for radical prostatectomy with a therapeutic approach. More than 2,100 men underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) in the Czech Republic in 2009 but mortality curve remained unchanged for years (Graph 2). The largest study (ERSPC) looking for influence of PSA screening on mortality, involving 182,000 men, of which 162,000 were valuable for analysis, really lowered mortality. After 11 years, in the screened arm (PCA arm) mortality decreased by more than 20% in the screened arm (PCA arm) when compared with unscreened arm. But to save one life, 1,410 patients had to be screened and 48 of them underwent RP. But ERSPC results (and those similar from eg. PLCO study) gave a rise of speculation if all early detected tumors are indeed candidates for surgery (overtreatment), even if such intensive PSA screening is reasonable (overdiagnosis). In last decades, results of several studies support an opinion that low risk tumors diagnosed in men over 68 years, with several co‑ morbidities and in less favorite health status would not be proper candidates for conservative approach (active surveillance or watchful waiting). As a consequence of these considerations, a question arises whether selected PSA test should not be more reasonable. In such a case, a patient should thoroughly discuss what profit the PSA test brings to him with his doctor.

Key words:
urogenital neoplasms – prostatic neoplasms – prostate cancer – prostate-specific antigen – PSA screening – conservative approaches

Zdroje

1. Uroweb.cz [internetová stránka]. Uroweb – webový portál pro analýzu a vizualizaci epidemiologie, diagnostiky a léčby urologických malignit. Masarykova univerzita, Česká republika. [citováno 2013]. Dostupné z: http:/ / www.uroweb.cz.

2. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al. Screening and prostate‑ cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009; 360(13): 1320– 1328.

3. Schröder FH. Landmarks in prostate cancer screening. BJU Int 2012; 110 (Suppl 1): 3– 7.

4. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow‑up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104(2): 125– 132.

5. Dušek L, Mužík J, Gelnarová E et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in the Czech Republic. Klin Onkol 2010; 23(5): 311– 324.

6. Sakr WA, Haas GP, Cassin BF et al. The frequency of carcinoma and intraepithelial neoplasia of the prostate in young male patients. J Urol 1993; 150(2 Pt 1): 379– 385.

7. Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Sanda MG et al. A multicenter study of [- 2]pro‑prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ ml prostate specific antigen range. J Urol 2011; 185(5): 1650– 1655.

8. Heidenreich A, Bastion PJ, Bellmunt J et al (eds). In: Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Association of Urology 2012. Available from: http:/ / www.uroweb.org/ gls/ pdf/ 08%20Prostate%20Cancer_LR%20March%2013th%202012.pdf.

9. Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Bjork T et al. Prostate specific antigen concentration at age 60 and death or metastasis from prostate cancer: case‑ control study. BMJ 2010; 341: c4521.

10. Vickers AJ, Roobol MJ, Lilja H. Screening for prostate cancer: early detection or overdetection? Annu Rev Med 2012; 63: 161– 170.

11. Siu‑ urology.org [homepage on the internet]. Société Internationale d’Urologie. The three documents for PSA testing: To test or not to test. Available from: http:/ / www.siu‑ urology.org/ psa‑ aid.aspx.

12. Punglia RS, Kuntz KM, Catalona WJ et al. Operating characteristics of prostate‑ specific antigen and verification bias. JAMA 2005; 294(21): 2698– 2699.

13. Määttänen L, Hakama M, Tammela TLJ et al. Specificity of serum prostate‑ specific antigen determination in the Finnish prostate cancer screening trial. Br J Cancer 2007; 96(1): 56– 60.

14. Punglia RS, D’Amico AV, Catalona WJ et al. Effect of verification bias on screening for prostate cancer by measurement of prostate‑ specific antigen. N Engl J Med 2003; 349(4): 335– 342.

15. Vickers A, Cronin A, Roobol M et al. Reducing unnecessary biopsy during prostate cancer screening using a four‑ kallikrein panel: an independent replication. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(15): 2493– 2498.

16. Schröder FH, van der Maas P, Beemsterboer P et al. Evaluation of the digital rectal examination as a screening test for prostate cancer. Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90(23): 1817– 1823.

17. Washington SL, Bonham M, Whitson JM et al. Transrectal ultrasonography‑ guided biopsy does not reliably identify dominant cancer location in men with low‑ risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 110(1): 50– 55.

18. Dall‘Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012; 62(6): 976– 983.

19. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Bennett A et al. Transperineal template‑ guided mapping biopsy as a staging procedure to select patients best suited for active surveillance. Am J Clin Oncol 2013; 36(2): 116– 120.

20. Bittner N, Merrick GS, Butler WM et al. Incidence and pathologic features of prostate cancer detected on transperineal template‑ guided mapping biopsy following negative transrectal ultrasound‑ guided biopsy. J Urol. In press 2013.

21. McCormack M, Duclos A, Latour M et al. Effect of needle size on cancer detection, pain, bleeding and infection in TRUS‑ guided prostate biopsies: A prospective trial. Can Urol Assoc J 2012; 6(2): 97– 101.

22. Lavery HJ, Droler MJ. Do Gleason patterns 3 and 4 prostate cancer represent separate disease States? J Urol 2012; 188(5): 1667– 1675.

23. Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE et al. Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS) ≤6 have the potential to metastasize to lymph nodes? Am J Surg Pathol 2012; 36(9): 1346– 1352.

24. Čapoun O, Babjuk M, Dvořáček J et al. Predikce patologické klasifikace karcinomu prostaty. Ces Urol 2008; 12(1): 31– 36.

25. Doležel J, Tvarůžek J, Staník M et al. Časné zkušenosti s roboticky asistovanou laparoskopickou radikální prostatektomií – prvních 153 pacientů. Ces Urol 2009; 13(2): 168– 177.

26. Broďák M, Košina J, Hušek P et al. Srovnání laparoskopické a retropubické radikální prostatektomie – zkušenosti z jednoho centra. Ces Urol 2012; 16(4): 222– 229.

27. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Patology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Trading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29(9): 1228– 1242.

28. Helpap B, Egeved L. Modified gleason grading. An updated review. Histol Histopathol 2009; 24(5): 661– 666.

29. Hanuš M, Králová V, Jarkovský J et al. Analýza uroonkologické chirurgické péče lůžkových urologických oddělení v ČR. In: Sborník abstrakt. XXXV. Brněnské onkologické dny a XXV. Konference pro nelékařské zdravotnické pracovníky. Brno, 21.– 23. dubna 2011. Brno: Masarykův onkologický ústav 2011: 51– 52.

30. Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: review. Arch Esp Urol 2011; 64(8): 806– 814.

31. Hanuš M, Matoušková M. Trendy diagnostiky a léčby CaP v České republice – vlastní výsledky konzervativního postupu. Ces Urol 2012; 16 (Suppl 1): 73.

32. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. Cancer 2002; 95(2): 281– 286.

33. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW et al. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 2007; 178 (3 Pt 2): S14–S1 9.

34. Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC et al. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008; 180(5): 1964– 1967.

35. Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K et al. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185(2): 477– 482.

36. Magnani T, Valdagni R, Salvioni R et al. The 6‑year attendance of a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic in Italy: incidence of management ganges BJU Int 2012; 110(7): 998– 1003.

37. The Friends of Israel – Urology Symposium (FOIU), Tel Aviv, Israel, July 3– 5, 2012.

38. Rider JR, Sandin F, Andrén O et al. Long‑term outcomes among noncuratively treated men according to prostate cancer risk category in a nationwide, population‑based study. Eur Urol 2013; 63(1): 88– 96.

39. Studer UE, Albertsen PC. It‘s time to change the treatment paradigm for prostate cancer! Eur Urol 2013; 63(1): 97– 99.