Active surveillance (AS) is a monitoring strategy to avoid or defer curative treatment, minimizing the side effects of radiotherapy and prostatectomy without compromising survival. AS in intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC) has increasingly become used. There is heterogeneity in intermediate-risk PC patients. Some of them have an aggressive clinical course and require active treatment, while others have indolent disease and may benefit from AS. However, intermediate-risk patients have an increased risk of metastasis, and the proper way to select the best candidates for AS is unknown. In addition, there are several differences between AS protocols in inclusion criteria, monitoring follow-up, and triggers for active treatment. A few large series and randomized trials are under investigation. Therefore, more research is needed to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with intermediate-risk disease.
1. Introduction
Worldwide, prostate cancer (PC) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer after lung cancer and the fifth cause of death by cancer in men
[1]. In 2020, there were an estimated 1.4 million new cases diagnosed with PC and 375,000 deaths worldwide. With the growth of the aging population, the number of PC cases is expected to increase by 3.5 times by 2040 worldwide
[2].
Active surveillance (AS) is a monitoring strategy to avoid or defer curative treatment, minimizing treatment-related toxicity without compromising survival. AS consists of long-term follow-up with evaluation of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), imaging, and prostate biopsy. AS allows appropriate risk reclassification and patient selection for intervention. In the last decades, AS has become a standard of care for men with low-risk PC (≤cT2a, Gleason score [GS] ≤ 6, and PSA < 10 ng/mL)
[3,4,5][3][4][5]. Moreover, a trend toward the increased use of AS has been observed in patients with low and intermediate-risk PC. For example, in the United States (US), low- and intermediate-risk patients choosing AS increased from 14.5% in 2010 to 42.1% in 2015, and from 5.8% to 9.6%, respectively
[6]. In a study from Sweden that included 98% of newly diagnosed PC from 2009 to 2014, the AS use increased from 57% to 91% for very low-risk PC, from 40% to 74% for low-risk, but remained at approximately 19% for intermediate-risk PC
[7].
2. Evidence on Non-Active Treatment in Intermediate-Risk PC
2.1. Prognosis in Intermediate-Risk PC by Observation vs. Active Treatment
To date, the Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT
[8]) and the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 Study (SPCG-4
[9]) have investigated immediate treatment (radical prostatectomy [RP] or radiation therapy [RT]) versus observation (AS or watchful waiting) in localized PC. In addition, the three-arm Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT
[10]) compared RP versus RT versus observation in this setting. Additionally, other non-randomized studies compared AS versus intervention
[11,12][11][12].
Table 1 shows a summary of the studies.
Table 1.
Active surveillance versus other active treatment in localized PC.
Authors |
Study Name |
Number of Patients Intermediate Risk/Total, n (%) |
Type |
Initiation |
Comparator |
Gleason 4 |
Median Follow-Up |
PC Mortality |
Non-PC Mortality |
Reference Number |
Hamdy et al. |
ProtecT |
490/1634 (31%) |
Prospective RCT |
2001–2009 |
AS vs. PR vs. RT |
NA |
10 years |
Similar deaths per 1000 person year of 1.5, 0.9 and 0.7 for AS, RP, and RT, respectively |
Similar all cause mortality per 1000 person year AS = 10.9; RP = 10.1; and RT = 10.3 |
[10] |
Wilt et al. |
PIVOT |
Observation = 120/348 (34.5%)
RP = 129/383 (33.6%) |
Prospective RCT |
1994–2002 |
RP vs. observation (WW) |
NA |
12.7 years |
Slightly higher 10-year PC mortality in RP (9.0% vs. 8.6%) |
Higher 10 year mortality in AS (71.2% vs. 62.6%) |
[8] |
Bill-Axelson et al. |
The Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 4 Study |
Observation = 133/348 (38.2%)
RP = 148/347 (42.7%) |
Prospective RCT |
1989–1999 |
RP vs. observation (WW) |
54/116 (46.5%) |
13.4 years |
Higher number of deaths by PC during follow-up in WW (99 vs. 63) |
Higher number of deaths by any cause during follow-up in WW (247 vs. 200) |
[9] |
Thomsen et al. |
Active surveillance versus radical prostatectomy in favorable-risk localized prostate cancer |
AS = 271/647 (42%)
RP = 276/647 (43%) |
Retrospective |
2002–2012 for AS
1995–2011 for RP |
RP vs. AS |
NA |
8.6 years |
Slightly higher 10-year PC mortality in RP (1.5% vs. 0.4%) |
Slightly higher 10-year non-PC mortality in RP (12.0% vs. 10.7%) |
[12] |
Stattin et al. |
Outcomes in localized PC: National PC Register of Sweden follow-up study |
AS/WW = 936/2021 (42%)
RP = 2172/3399 (52.5%) |
Retrospective |
1997–2002 |
RP vs. AS/WW |
NA |
8.2 years |
Higher 10-year PC mortality in AS/WW (5.2% vs. 3.4%) |
Higher 10-year non-PC mortality in AS (23.4% vs. 11.3%) * |
[11] |