Active Surveillance For Low Risk Prostate Cancer

The prostate is part of the male genitourinary tract. It is a walnut-sized gland, located underneath the urinary bladder, enveloping the proximal part of the urethra. The main function of the prostate is the excretion of a fl uid that forms part of the semen, but it also has an important role in controlling the fl ow of semen at the moment of ejaculation. Cancer of the prostate is a major health issue, it is mainly found in elderly men. In the United States, as an example for most Western countries, prostate cancer (PC) is the most frequently diagnosed non-skin cancer and is the second leading cause of cancerrelated mortality in men. A total of 192.280 new cases are estimated to be detected and 27.360 men are estimated to die of this disease in 2009 in the United States1. This means that 1 out of every 6 men will be diagnosed with the disease during their lifetime and 1 out of every 35 will die of it. The impressively high frequency of PC is further illustrated by autopsy studies, which show that as much as 55% of men in their fi fties and 64% of men in their seventies harbour the disease

Evolution of European prostate cancer screening protocols and summary of ongoing trials

Population-based organised repeated screening for prostate cancer has been found to reduce disease-specific mortality, but with substantial overdiagnosis leading to overtreatment. Although only very few countries have implemented a screening programme on a national level, individual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is common. This opportunistic testing may have little favourable impact, while stressing the side-effects. The classic early detection protocols as were state-of-the-art in the 1990s applied a PSA and digital rectal examination threshold for sextant systematic prostate biopsy, with a fixed interval for re-testing, and limited indication for expectant management. In the three decades since these trials were started, different important improvements have become available in the cascade of screening, indication for biopsy, and treatment. The main developed aspects include: better identification of individuals at risk (using early/baseline PSA, family history, and/or genetic profile), individualised re-testing interval, optimised and individualised starting and stopping age, with gradual invitation at a fixed age rather than invitation of a wider range of age groups, risk stratification for biopsy (using PSA density, risk calculator, magnetic resonance imaging, serum and urine biomarkers, or combinations/sequences), targeted biopsy, transperineal biopsy approach, active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, and improved staging of disease. All these developments are suggested to decrease the side-effects of screening, while at least maintaining the advantages, but Level 1 evidence is lacking. The knowledge gained and new developments on early detection are being tested in different prospective screening trials throughout Europe. In addition, the European Union-funded PRostate cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union (PRAISE-U) project will compare and evaluate different screening pilots throughout Europe. Implementation and sustainability will also be addressed. Modern screening approaches may reduce the burden of the second most frequent cause of cancer-related death in European males, while minimising side-effects. Also, less efficacious opportunistic early detection may be indirectly reduced.</p

Evolution of European prostate cancer screening protocols and summary of ongoing trials

Population-based organised repeated screening for prostate cancer has been found to reduce disease-specific mortality, but with substantial overdiagnosis leading to overtreatment. Although only very few countries have implemented a screening programme on a national level, individual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is common. This opportunistic testing may have little favourable impact, while stressing the side-effects. The classic early detection protocols as were state-of-the-art in the 1990s applied a PSA and digital rectal examination threshold for sextant systematic prostate biopsy, with a fixed interval for re-testing, and limited indication for expectant management. In the three decades since these trials were started, different important improvements have become available in the cascade of screening, indication for biopsy, and treatment. The main developed aspects include: better identification of individuals at risk (using early/baseline PSA, family history, and/or genetic profile), individualised re-testing interval, optimised and individualised starting and stopping age, with gradual invitation at a fixed age rather than invitation of a wider range of age groups, risk stratification for biopsy (using PSA density, risk calculator, magnetic resonance imaging, serum and urine biomarkers, or combinations/sequences), targeted biopsy, transperineal biopsy approach, active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, and improved staging of disease. All these developments are suggested to decrease the side-effects of screening, while at least maintaining the advantages, but Level 1 evidence is lacking. The knowledge gained and new developments on early detection are being tested in different prospective screening trials throughout Europe. In addition, the European Union-funded PRostate cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union (PRAISE-U) project will compare and evaluate different screening pilots throughout Europe. Implementation and sustainability will also be addressed. Modern screening approaches may reduce the burden of the second most frequent cause of cancer-related death in European males, while minimising side-effects. Also, less efficacious opportunistic early detection may be indirectly reduced.</p

How Does Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer Affect Quality of Life?:A Systematic Review

The optimal management of screen-detected, localised prostate cancer remains controversial, related to overtreatment issues of screening and the nonrandomised evidence base. Active surveillance (AS) aims to delay or avoid curative therapy but may potentially harm patients' well-being through living with untreated prostate cancer

PSMA PET/CT in diagnostics and response evaluation in patients with primary metastasized prostate cancer:A review of the impact on treatment decisions

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in man. Adequate staging is important in determining prognosis and guiding therapeutic decisions. The prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has a higher diagnostic accuracy than conventional imaging, consisting of CT-thorax/abdomen and bone scintigraphy. This ensures better visualization of metastases and therefore changes the stage, usually to a higher stage, of prostate cancer at diagnosis. The impact of this stage shift on oncologic outcomes is unclear, however it hypothetically ensures better outcomes of patients diagnosed at the same stage. It is unclear which impact this stage shift should have on therapeutic decisions. In patients with metastatic prostate cancer PSMA PET/CT findings and treatment response on the PSMA PET/CT could predict the likelihood of successful treatment.</p

PSMA PET/CT in diagnostics and response evaluation in patients with primary metastasized prostate cancer: A review of the impact on treatment decisions

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in man. Adequate staging is important in determining prognosis and guiding therapeutic decisions. The prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has a higher diagnostic accuracy than conventional imaging, consisting of CT-thorax/abdomen and bone scintigraphy. This ensures better visualization of metastases and therefore changes the stage, usually to a higher stage, of prostate cancer at diagnosis. The impact of this stage shift on oncologic outcomes is unclear, however it hypothetically ensures better outcomes of patients diagnosed at the same stage. It is unclear which impact this stage shift should have on therapeutic decisions. In patients with metastatic prostate cancer PSMA PET/CT findings and treatment response on the PSMA PET/CT could predict the likelihood of successful treatment

PSMA PET/CT in diagnostics and response evaluation in patients with primary metastasized prostate cancer:A review of the impact on treatment decisions

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in man. Adequate staging is important in determining prognosis and guiding therapeutic decisions. The prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has a higher diagnostic accuracy than conventional imaging, consisting of CT-thorax/abdomen and bone scintigraphy. This ensures better visualization of metastases and therefore changes the stage, usually to a higher stage, of prostate cancer at diagnosis. The impact of this stage shift on oncologic outcomes is unclear, however it hypothetically ensures better outcomes of patients diagnosed at the same stage. It is unclear which impact this stage shift should have on therapeutic decisions. In patients with metastatic prostate cancer PSMA PET/CT findings and treatment response on the PSMA PET/CT could predict the likelihood of successful treatment.</p

Prostate cancer-specific anxiety in Dutch patients on active surveillance: validation of the memorial anxiety scale for prostate cancer

Purpose: Men with prostate cancer (PC) may show specific disease-related anxiety. We evaluated the psychometric properties of the Dutch adaptation of the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC). Methods: The MAX-PC was translated using standardized forward-backward procedures. Patients (N = 150) on active surveillance, a strategy of initially withholding active therapy, for recently diagnosed early PC were mailed a questionnaire. Internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach's alpha. The scale structure was analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Construct validity was evaluated by Pearson's correlations between MAX-PC scores and scores on decisional conflict (DCS), generic anxiety (STAI), depression (CES-D), and general mental health (SF-12 MCS). Results: Data from 129 respondents were used (response rate 86%). Cronbach's alpha for the total score and the three subscales were 0.77, 0.91, 0.64, and 0.85, respectively. CFA largely confirmed the three-factor structure as used in the original publication (model fit: χ2 149, P = 0.051). The patterns of directions and sizes of the correlations (r = 0.36-0.66) between MAX-PC scale scores and the other variables were in accordance with a priori hypotheses, except for the prostate-specific antigen anxiety subscale. The relatively poor performance of this scale in the original version was replicated. Conclusions: The structure and validity of the MAX-PC to quantify PC-specific anxiety were largely confirmed in Dutch patients

Enhancing Prostate Cancer Detection Accuracy in Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Prostate Biopsy:Optimizing the Number of Cores Taken

Background and objective: The shift toward targeted biopsy (TBx) aims at enhancing prostate cancer (PCa) detection while reducing overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant disease. Despite the improved ability of TBx in identifying clinically significant PCa (csPCa), the optimal number and location of targeted cores remain unclear. This review aims to assess the optimal number of prostate biopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted cores to detect csPCa. Methods: A narrative literature search was conducted using PubMed, focusing on studies published between January 2014 and January 2024, addressing factors influencing targeted core numbers during prostate biopsy. The search included both retrospective and prospective studies, prioritizing those with substantial sample sizes and employing terms such as “prostate biopsy”, “mpMRI”, “core number”, and “cancer detection”. Key findings and limitations: Two biopsy cores identified csPCa in 55–65% of cases. This detection rate improved to approximately 90% when the number of cores was ≥5. The inclusion of perilesional and systematic biopsies could maximize the detection of csPCa (from 10% to 45%), especially in patients under active surveillance or with prior negative biopsy results, although there is an increase in the overdiagnosis of indolent tumors (from 4% to 20%). Transperineal software-assisted target prostate biopsy may enhance cancer detection, particularly for tumors located at the apex/anterior part of the prostate. Increasing the number of TBx cores may incrementally raise the risk of complications (by 2–14% with each added core) and result in severe pain and significant discomfort for up to 17% and 25% of TBx patients, respectively. However, the overall rate and severity of these complications remain within acceptable limits. Conclusions and clinical implications: The optimal number of cores for targeted prostate biopsies should balance minimizing sampling errors with effective cancer detection and should be tailored to each patient's unique prostate characteristics. Up to five cores per MRI target may be considered to enhance the detection of csPCa, with adjustments based on factors such as prostate and lesion volume, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, biopsy techniques, complications, patient discomfort, and anxiety. Patient summary: In this report, we found that increasing the number of biopsy cores up to ≥5 improves the detection rates of significant prostate cancer significantly to around 90%. Although inclusion of nearby and systematic biopsies enhances detection, increasing the biopsy count may lead to higher risks of complications and indolent tumors. A customized biopsy approach based on multiple variables could be helpful in determining the appropriate number of targeted biopsies on a case-by-case basis.</p

Enhancing Prostate Cancer Detection Accuracy in Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Prostate Biopsy:Optimizing the Number of Cores Taken

Background and objective: The shift toward targeted biopsy (TBx) aims at enhancing prostate cancer (PCa) detection while reducing overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant disease. Despite the improved ability of TBx in identifying clinically significant PCa (csPCa), the optimal number and location of targeted cores remain unclear. This review aims to assess the optimal number of prostate biopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted cores to detect csPCa. Methods: A narrative literature search was conducted using PubMed, focusing on studies published between January 2014 and January 2024, addressing factors influencing targeted core numbers during prostate biopsy. The search included both retrospective and prospective studies, prioritizing those with substantial sample sizes and employing terms such as “prostate biopsy”, “mpMRI”, “core number”, and “cancer detection”. Key findings and limitations: Two biopsy cores identified csPCa in 55–65% of cases. This detection rate improved to approximately 90% when the number of cores was ≥5. The inclusion of perilesional and systematic biopsies could maximize the detection of csPCa (from 10% to 45%), especially in patients under active surveillance or with prior negative biopsy results, although there is an increase in the overdiagnosis of indolent tumors (from 4% to 20%). Transperineal software-assisted target prostate biopsy may enhance cancer detection, particularly for tumors located at the apex/anterior part of the prostate. Increasing the number of TBx cores may incrementally raise the risk of complications (by 2–14% with each added core) and result in severe pain and significant discomfort for up to 17% and 25% of TBx patients, respectively. However, the overall rate and severity of these complications remain within acceptable limits. Conclusions and clinical implications: The optimal number of cores for targeted prostate biopsies should balance minimizing sampling errors with effective cancer detection and should be tailored to each patient's unique prostate characteristics. Up to five cores per MRI target may be considered to enhance the detection of csPCa, with adjustments based on factors such as prostate and lesion volume, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, biopsy techniques, complications, patient discomfort, and anxiety. Patient summary: In this report, we found that increasing the number of biopsy cores up to ≥5 improves the detection rates of significant prostate cancer significantly to around 90%. Although inclusion of nearby and systematic biopsies enhances detection, increasing the biopsy count may lead to higher risks of complications and indolent tumors. A customized biopsy approach based on multiple variables could be helpful in determining the appropriate number of targeted biopsies on a case-by-case basis.</p