EAU GUIDELINES ON PROSTATE CANCER - PART 1: SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, AND TREATMENT OF CLINICALLY LOCALISED DISEASE
Authors:
A. Heidenreich; J. Bellmunt; M. Bolla; S. Joniau; M. Mason; V. Matveev; N. Mottet; H. P. Schmid; T. Van Der Kwast; T. Wiegel; F. Zattoni
Published in the journal:
Urol List 2011; 9(2): 83-94
Summary
Objective:
Our aim was to present a summary of the 2010 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised cancer of the prostate (PCa).
Methods:
The working panel performed a literature review of the new data emerging from 2007 to 2010. The guidelines were updated, and level of evidence and grade of recommendation were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature, which included a search of online databases and bibliographic reviews.
Results:
A full version is available at the EAU office or Web site (www.uroweb.org). Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population-based screening by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for PCa. A systematic prostate biopsy under ultrasound guidance and local anaesthesia is the preferred diagnostic method. Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy. PSA doubling time in < 3 yr or a biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention. In men with locally advanced PCa in whom local therapy is not mandatory, watchful waiting (WW) is a treatment alternative to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with equivalent oncologic efficacy. Active treatment is mostly recommended for patients with localised disease and a long life expectancy with radical prostatectomy (RP) shown to be superior to WW in a prospective randomised trial. Nerve-sparing RP represents the approach of choice in organ-confined disease; neoadjuvant androgen deprivation demonstrates no improvement of outcome variables. Radiation therapy should be performed with at least 74 Gy and 78 Gy in low-risk and intermediate/high-risk PCa, respectively. For locally advanced disease, adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior disease-specific and overall survival rates and represents the treatment of choice. Follow-up after local therapy is largely based on PSA, and a disease-specific history with imaging is indicated only when symptoms occur.
Conclusions:
The knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing. These EAU Guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice.
Zdroje
1. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 68–80.
2. US Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Web site. http://www.ahcpr.gov/.
3. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58(2): 71–96.
4. Ferlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E. Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe 2008. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46(4): 765–781.
5. Bratt O. Hereditary prostate cancer: clinical aspects. J Urol 2002; 168(3): 906–913.
6. Sobin LH, Gospodariwicz M, Wittekind C et al. TNM classification of malignant tumors. UICC International Union Against Cancer. ed 7. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. 243–248.
7. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974; 111(1): 58–64.
8. Ilic D, O’Connor D, Green S et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review. Cancer Causes Control 2007; 18(3): 279–285.
9. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb III RL et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 2009; 360(13): 1310–1319.
10. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al; ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate-cancer morta-lity in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009; 360(13): 1320–1328.
11. van Leeuwen PJ, Connolly D, Gavin A et al. Prostate cancer mortality in screen and clinically detected prostate cancer: estimating the screening benefit. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46(2): 377–383.
12. Börgermann C, Loertzer H, Hammerer P et al. Problems, objective, and substance of early detection of prostate cancer [in German]. Urologe A 2010; 49(2): 181–189.
13. Carter HB, Kettermann AE, Ferrucci L et al. Prostate specific antigen testing among the elderly; when to stop? J Urol 2008; 174 (Suppl 1): 600, Abstract 1751.
14. Carvalhal GF, Smith DS, Mager DE et al. Digital rectal examination for detecting prostate cancer at prostate specific antigen levels of 4 ng/ml or less. J Urol 1999; 161(3): 835–839.
15. Loeb S, Catalona WJ. What is the role of digital rectal examination in men undergoing serial screening of serum PSA levels? Nat Clin Pract Urol 2009; 6(2): 68–69.
16. Stephan C, Köpke T, Semjonow A et al. Discordant total and free prostate-specific antigen (PSA) assays: does calibration with WHO reference materials diminish the problem? Clin Chem Lab Med 2009; 47(11): 1325–1331.
17. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level ≤ 4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 2004; 350(22): 2239–2246.
18. Kobori Y, Kitagawa Y, Mizokami A et al. Free-tototal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ratio contributes to an increased rate of prostate cancer detection in a Japanese population screened using a PSA level of 2.1-10.0 ng/ml as a criterion. Int J Clin Oncol 2008; 13(3): 229–232.
19. O’Brien MF, Cronin AM, Fearn PA et al. Pretreatment prostatespecific antigen (PSA) velocity and doubling time are associated with outcome but neither improves prediction of outcome beyond pretreatment PSA alone in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(22): 3591–3597.
20. Vickers AJ, Savage C, O’Brien MF, Lilja H. Systematic review of pretreatment prostate-specific antigen velocity and doubling time as predictors for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(3): 398–403.
21. Deras IL, Aubin SM, Blase A et al. PCA3: a molecular urine assay for predicting prostate biopsy outcome. J Urol 2008; 179(4): 1587–1589.
22. Remzi M, Haese A, van Poppel H et al. Follow-up of men with an elevated PCA3 score and a negative biopsy: does an elevated PCA3 score indeed predict the presence of prostate cancer? BJU Int 2010; 106(8): 1138–1142.
23. Ploussard G, Haese A, van Poppel H, et al. The prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) urine test in men with previous negative biopsies: does free-to-total prostate-specific antigen ratio influence the performance of the PCA3 score in predicting positive biopsies? BJU Int 2010; 106(8): 1143–1147.
24. Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T et al. Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology 2008; 71(2): 191–195.
25. Takenaka A, Hara R, Ishimura T et al. A prospective randomized comparison of diagnostic efficiency between transperineal and transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2008; 11(2): 134–138.
26. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J et al. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 2006; 175(6 Pt 1): 1605–1612.
27. Aron M, Rajeev TP, Gupta NP. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal needle biopsy of the prostate: a randomized controlled study. BJU Int 2000; 85(6): 682–685.
28. Adamakis I, Mitropoulos D, Haritopoulos K et al. Pain during transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy: a randomized prospective trial comparing periprostatic infiltration with lidocaine with the intrarectal instillation of lidocaine-prilocain cream. World J Urol 2004; 22(4): 281–284.
29. Merrimen JL, Jones G, Walker D et al. Multifocal high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a significant risk factor for prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 2009; 182(2): 485–490.
30. Van der Kwast TH, Lopes C, Santonja C et al. Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies. J Clin Pathol 2003; 56(5): 336–340.
31. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB; ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228–1242.
32. Herkommer K, Kuefer R, Gschwend JE, Hautmann RE, Volkmer BG. Pathological T0 prostate cancer without neoadjuvant therapy: clinical presentation and follow-up. Eur Urol 2004; 45(1): 36–41.
33. Trpkov K, Gao Y, Hay R et al. No residual cancer on radical prostatectomy after positive 10-core biopsy: incidence, biopsy findings, and DNA specimen identity analysis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006; 130(6): 811–816.
34. Fuchsjager M, Shukla-Dave A, Akin O et al. Prostate cancer imaging. Acta Radiol 2008; 49(1): 107–120.
35. Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW et al. Prediction of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: incremental value of adding endorectal MRI to the Kattan Nomogram. Radiology 2007; 242(1): 182–188.
36. Hoivels AM, Heesakkers RAM, Adang EM et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 2008; 63(4): 387–395.
37. Husarik DB, Miralbell R, Dubs M et al. Evaluation of [(18)F]-choline PET/CT for staging and restaging of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35(2): 253–263.
38. Schiavina R, Scattoni V, Castellucci P et al. 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for preoperative lymph-node staging in intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer: comparison with clinical staging nomograms. Eur Urol 2008; 54(2): 392–401.
39. Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol 2002; 167: 1681–1686.
40. Briganti A, Passoni N, Ferrari M et al. When to perform bone scan in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: external validation of the currently available guidelines and proposal of a novel risk stratification tool. Eur Urol 2010; 57(4): 551–558.
41. Beheshti M, Vali R, Langsteger W. [18F]Fluorocholine PET/CT in the assessment of bone metastases in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007; 34(8): 1316–1317.
42. Chodak GW, Thisted RA, Gerber GS et al. Results of conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 1994; 330(4): 242–248.
43. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Gleason DF et al. Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280(11): 975–980.
44. 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): 126–131.
45. Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a review. Curr Urol Rep 2010; 11(3): 165–171.
46. Krakowsky Y, Loblaw A, Klotz L. Prostate cancer death of men treated with initial active surveillance: clinical and biochemical characteristics. J Urol 2010; 184(1): 131–135.
47. Al Otaibi M, Ross P, Fahmy N et al. Role of repeated biopsy of the prostate in predicting disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Cancer 2008; 113(2): 286–292.
48. 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): 2810–2816.
49. Studer UE, Whelan P, Albrecht W et al. Immediate or deferred androgen deprivation for patients with prostate cancer not suitable for local treatment with curative intent: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Trial 30891. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24(12): 1868–1876.
50. Studer UE, Collette L, Whelan P et al. Using PSA to guide timing of androgen deprivation in patients with T0-4 N0–2 M0 prostate cancer not suitable for local curative treatment (EORTC 30891). Eur Urol 2008; 53: 941–949.
51. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M et al., Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study No. 4. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 352(19): 1977–1984.
52. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, File´n F et al. Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100(16): 1144–1154.
53. Heidenreich A, Pfister D, Thüer D et al. Percentage of positive biopsies predicts lymph node involvement in men with low-risk prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. BJU Int 2011; 107(2): 220–225.
54. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A et al. Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph node invasion based on the extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2006; 98(4): 788–793.
55. Yossepowitch O, Eggener SE, Bianco FJ Jr et al. Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized, high risk prostate cancer: critical analysis of risk assessment methods. J Urol 2007; 178(2): 493–9, discussion 499.
56. Ward JF, Slezak JM, Blute ML et al. Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int 2005; 95(6): 751–756.
57. Pierorazio PM, Guzzo TJ, Han M et al. Long-term survival after radical prostatectomy for men with high Gleason sum in pathologic specimen. Urology 2010; 76(3): 715–721.
58. Joniau S, Hsu CY, Lerut E et al. A pretreatment table for the prediction of final histopathology after radical prostatectomy in clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2007; 51(2): 388–396.
59. Van Poppel H, Joniau S. An analysis of radical prostatectomy in advanced stage and high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008; 53(2): 253–259.
60. Loeb S, Smith ND, Roehl KA et al. Intermediate-term potency, continence, and survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy for clinically high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer. Urology 2007; 69(6): 1170–1175.
61. Shelley MD, Kumar S, Wilt T et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of neoadjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate carcinoma. Cancer Treat Rev 2009; 35(1): 9–17.
62. Kumar S, Shelley M, Harrison C et al. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006, CD006019.
63. Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J, et al. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study EST 3886. Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7(6): 472–479.
64. McLeod DG, Iversen P, See WA, et al; Casodex Early Prostate Cancer Trialists’ Group. Bicalutamide 150 mg plus standard care vs standard care alone for early prostate cancer. BJU Int 2006; 97(2): 247–254.
65. Wong YN, Freedland S, Egleston B, et al. Role of androgen deprivation therapy for node-posi-tive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(1): 100–105.
66. Bolla M, van Poppel H, Collette L et al; European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet 2005; 366(9485): 572–578.
67. Wiegel T, Bottke D, Steiner U et al. Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative undetectable prostate-specific antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(18): 2924–2930.
68. Swanson GP, Thompson IM, Tangen C et al. Update of SWOG 8794: adjuvant radiotherapy for pT3 prostate cancer improves metastasis free survival. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 72(4): S31.
69. Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a randomized clinical trial. J Urol 2009; 181(3): 956–962.
70. Bolla M, de Reijke TM, Van Tienhoven G et al. Duration of androgen suppression in the treatment of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2009; 360(24): 2516–2527.
71. Kupelian P, Kuban D, Thames H et al. Improved biochemical relapse-free survival with increased external radiation doses in patients with localized prostate cancer: the combined experience of nine institutions in patients treated in 1994 and 1995. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 61(2): 415–419.
72. Peeters ST, Heemsbergen WD, Koper PCM et al. Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: results of the Dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with 78 Gy. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24(13): 1990–1996.
73. D’Amico A, Renshaw AA, Loffredo M et al. Androgen suppression and radiation vs radiation alone for prostate cancer; a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2008; 299(3): 289–295.
74. Widmark A, Klepp O, Solberg A et al. Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study 7; Swedish Association for Urological Oncology 3. Endocrine treatment, with or without radiotherapy, in locally advanced prostate cancer (SPCG-7/SFUO-3): an open randomized phase III trial. Lancet 2009; 373(9660): 301–308.
75. Warde PR, Mason MD, Sydes MR et al. NCIC CTG PR.3/MRC PRO7/SWOG JPR3 investigators. Intergroup randomized phase III study of andro-gen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus radiation the-rapy (RT) in locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) (NCIC-CTG, SWOG, MRC-UK, INT: T94-0110; NCT00002633). J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(Suppl): 18s, Abstract CRA4504.
76. Mottet N, Peneau M, Mazeron J et al. Impact of radiotherapy (RT) combined with androgen deprivation (ADT) versus ADT alone for local control in clinically locally advanced prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28 (Suppl): 15s, Abstract 4505.
77. Ash D, Flynn A, Batterman J et al; ESTRA/EAU Urological Brachytherapy Group; EORTC Radiotherapy Group. ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on permanent seed implantation for localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2000; 57(3): 315–321.
78. Voulgaris S, Nobes JP, Laing RW et al. State-of-the-art: prostate LDR brachytherapy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2008; 11(3): 237–240.
79. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Butler WM et al. Long-term outcome for clinically localized prostate cancertreated with permanent interstitial brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 79(5): 1336–1342.
80. Pommier P, Chabaud S, Lagrange JL et al. Is there a role for pelvic irradiation in localized prostate adenocarcinoma? Preliminary results of GETUG-01. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(34): 5366–5373.
81. Zelefsky MJ, Chan H, Hunt M et al. Longterm outcome of high dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2006; 176(4 Pt 1): 1415–1419.
82. Cahlon O, Zelefsky MJ, Shippy A et al. Ultrahigh dose (86.4 Gy) IMRT for localized prostate cancer: toxicity and biochemical outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 71(2): 330–337.
83. Talcott JA, Rossi C, Shipley WU et al. Patient-reported long-term outcomes after conventional and high-dose combined proton and photon radiation for early prostate cancer. JAMA 2010; 303(13): 1046–1053.
84. Babaian RJ, Donnelly B, Bahn D et al. Best practice statement on cryosurgery for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2008; 180(5): 1993–2004.
85. Warmuth M, Johansson T, Mad P. Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of high-intensity focussed ultrasound for the primary and salvage treatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010; 58(6): 803–815.
86. Donnelly BJ, Saliken JC, Brasher PM et al. A randomized trial of external beam radiotherapy versus cryoablation in patients with localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2010; 116(2): 323–330.
Štítky
Paediatric urologist UrologyČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Urological Journal
2011 Číslo 2
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- A SUMMARY OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR PROSTATE CANCER (ROBOT, LAP, BRACHY, CRYO, CYBERKNIFE)
- EAU GUIDELINES ON PROSTATE CANCER - PART 1: SCREENING, DIAGNOSIS, AND TREATMENT OF CLINICALLY LOCALISED DISEASE
- SCREENING OF PROSTATE CANCER
- EAU GUIDELINES ON PROSTATE CANCERPART 2: TREATMENT OF ADVANCED, RELAPSING, AND CASTRATION-RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER