Treatment of localized prostate cancer depending on the oncological risk group
https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2024-20-4-112-119
Abstract
Prostate cancer is one of the frequently occurring malignant tumors in men with a steady increase in the number of primary diagnosed cases. Treatment of localized forms of prostate tumors should be prescribed taking into account the progression risk group.
The unresolved problem for low-risk prostate cancer patients is the redundancy of treatment while active surveillance demonstrates the highest probability of a favorable outcome. There is also a lack of consensus in the current scientific community on the most effective treatment for patients at intermediate and high risk of progression. These issues predetermined the purpose of the review: to identify the most optimal methods of treatment of localized prostate cancer taking into account the progression risk group.
About the Authors
R. S. Nizamova
Department of Urology, Samara State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
89 Chapaevskaya St., Samara 443099
Competing Interests:
None
R. D. Andreeva
Department of Urology, Samara State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
89 Chapaevskaya St., Samara 443099
Competing Interests:
None
M. O. Vozdvizhensky
Samara Regional Clinical Oncologic Dispensary
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
50 Solnechnaya St., Samara 443031
Competing Interests:
None
References
1. Clinical recommendations. Prostate cancer. Ministry of Health of the Russia, 2018. Available at: https://oncology.ru/association/clinical-guidelines/2018/rak_predstatelnoy_zhelezy_pr2018.pdf (In Russ.).
2. Bekelman J.E., Rumble R.B., Chen R.C. et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline endorsement of an American Urological Association. American Society for Radiation Oncology. Society of Urologic Oncology Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(32):3251–58. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.18.00606
3. Zhen L., Zhien Z., Shengmin Y. et al. Can patients with low-risk prostate cancer really benefit from radical treatment? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Andrologia 2021;53(9):e14122. DOI: 10.1111/and.14122
4. Vernooij R.W., Lancee M., Cleves A. et al. Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;6(6):CD006590. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006590.pub3
5. Polyakov S.L., Shimanets S.V., Karman A.V. et al. Active surveillance in prostate cancer. Zdravookhranenie (Minsk, Belarus) = Healthcare 2020;(9):58–67. (In Russ.).
6. Cimino S., Privitera S., Favilla V. et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: are all criteria similar? Anticancer Agents Med Chem 2018;18(7):958–63. DOI: 10.2174/1871520618666180425121617
7. Willemse P.M., Davis N.F., Grivas N. et al. Systematic review of active surveillance for clinically localised prostate cancer to develop recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and surveillance repeat biopsy strategy. Eur Urol 2022;81(4):337–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.12.007
8. Wilt T.J., Vo T.N., Langsetmo L. et al. Radical prostatectomy or observation for clinically localized prostate cancer: extended follow-up of the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT). Eur Urol 2020;77(6):713–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.02.009
9. Thomsen F.B., Brasso K., Klotz L.H. et al. Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer – a systematic review. J Surg Oncol 2014;109(8):830. DOI: 10.1002/jso.23584
10. Uesugi T., Saika T., Edamura K. et al. Primary Gleason grade 4 impact on biochemical recurrence after permanent interstitial brachytherapy in Japanese patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82(2):219–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.04.018
11. Welty C.J., Cowan J.E., Nguyen H. et al. Extended follow-up and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2015;193(3):807–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.094
12. Hayes J.H., Ollendorf D.A., Pearson S.D. et al. Observation versus initial treatment for men with localized, low-risk prostate cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:853–60. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-12-201306180-00002
13. Shill D.K., Roobol M.J., Ehdaie B. et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2021;10(6):2809–19. DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-1370
14. Gasanov E.N., Chinenov D.V., Akopyan G.N. et al. The first results of active surveillance of patients with prostate cancer of low oncologic risk. Andrologiya i genital’naya khirurgiya = Andrology and Genital Surgery 2021;22(2):78–83. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/1726-9784-2021-22-2-78-83
15. Lam T.B.L., MacLennan S., Willemse P.P.M. et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG prostate cancer guideline panel consensus statements for deferred treatment with curative intent for localized prostate cancer from an international collaborative study (DETECTIVE Study). Eur Urol 2019;76(6):790–813. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.020
16. Phillip J.G., Chun C.L., Ahmedin J. Recent trends in the management of localized prostate cancer: results from the National Cancer Data Base. J Clin Oncol 2014;90(1):S431–2.
17. Mahal B.A., Butler S., Franco I. et al. Use of active surveillance or waiting for low-risk prostate cancer and management trends across risk groups in the United States, 2010–2015. JAMA 2019; 321(7):704–6. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.19941
18. Kokin S.P., Nyushko K.M., Alekseev B.Ya. et al. Active surveillance for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Eksperimentalnaya i klinicheskaya urologiya = Experimental and Clinical Urology 2022;15(3):55–63. (In Russ.).
19. Bastian P.J., Carter B., Bjartell A. Insignificant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from definition to clinical implications. Eur Urol 2009;55(6):1321–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.02.028
20. Kinsella N., Helleman J., Bruinsma S. et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices. Transl Androl Urol 2018;7(1):83–97. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2017.12.24
21. Bokhorst L.P., Valdagni R., Rannikko A. et al. A Decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol 2016;70(6):954–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.007
22. Matulewicz R.S., Weiner A.B., Schaeffer E.M. Active surveillance for prostate cancer. JAMA 2017;318(21):2152. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.17222
23. Kasperzyk J.L., Shappley W.V. 3rd, Kenfield S.A. et al. Watchful waiting and quality of life among prostate cancer survivors in the Physicians’ Health Study. J Urol 2011;186(5):1862–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.06.058
24. Shappley W.V. 3rd, Kenfield S.A., Kasperzyk J.L. et al. Prospective study of determinants and outcomes of deferred treatment or watchful waiting among men with prostate cancer in a nationwide cohort. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(30):4980–5. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.2613
25. Tosoian J.J., Mamawala M., Epstein J.I. et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33(33):33–79. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764
26. Van As N.J., Norman A.R., Thomas K. et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localized prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 2008;54(6):1297–305. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.02.039
27. Hardi C., Parker C., Norman A. et al. Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2005;95(7):956–60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05446.x
28. Gasanov E.N., Shpot E.V., Magomedov A.A. et al. Low-risk prostate cancer: evaluation of quality of life after surgical treatment and during active observation. Andrologiya i genital’naya khirurgiya = Andrology and Genital Surgery 2021;22(4):60–7. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/1726-9784-2021-22-4-60-67
29. Ellison L.M., Heaney J.A., Birkmeyer J.D. The effect of hospital volume on mortality and resource use after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2000;163(3):867–69.
30. Miccio J.A., Talcott W.J., Jairam V. et al. Quantifying treatment selection bias effect on survival in comparative effectiveness research: findings from low-risk prostate cancer patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2021;24(2):414–22. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-020-00291-3
31. Preisser F., Cooperberg M.R., Crook J. et al. Intermediate-risk prostate cancer: stratification and management. Eur Urol Oncol 2020;3(3):270–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.03.002
32. King M.T., Keyes M., Frank S.J. et al. Low dose rate brachytherapy for primary treatment of localized prostate cancer: a systemic review and executive summary of an evidence-based consensus statement. Brachytherapy 2021;20(6):1114–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2021.07.006
33. Boorjian S.A., Karnes R.J., Rangel L.J. et al. Clinic validation of the D’amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2008;179(4):1354–60; discussion 1360–1. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.11.061
34. Bill-Axelson A., Holmberg L., Ruutu M. et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Eng J Med 2011;364(18):1708–17. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1011967
35. Luo X., Yi M., Hu Q., Yin W. Prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Scand J Surg 2021;110(1):78–85. DOI: 10.1177/1457496919883962
36. Gritskevich A.A., Medvedev V.L., Kostin A.A. et al. Prognostic factors of patient survival in prostate cancer. Eksperimental’naya i klinicheskaya urologiya = Experimental and Clinical Urology 2017;(4):203. (In Russ.).
37. Wilt T.J., Brawer M.K., Jones K.M. et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;367(3):203–13. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113162
38. Eggener S.E., Scardino P.T., Walsh P.C. et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011;185(3):869–75. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.10.057
39. Michalski J.M., Moughan J., Purdy J. et al. Effect of standard vs dose-escalated radiation therapy for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer: the NRG Oncology RTOG 0126 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2018;4(6):e180039. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.0039
40. Hoskin P.J., Colombo A., Henry A. et al. GEC/ESTRO recommendations on high dose rate afterloading brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer: an update. Radiother Oncol 2013;107(3):325–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.05.002
41. Jones C.U., Hunt D., McGowan D.G. et al. Radiotherapy and short-term androgen deprivation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011;365(2):107–18. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1012348
42. Chiang P.H., Liu Y.Y. Comparisons of oncological and functional outcomes among radical retropubic prostatectomy, high dose rate brachytherapy, cryoablation and high-intensity focused ultrasound for localized prostate cancer. Springerplus 2016;5(1):1905. DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-3584-4
43. Hayashi M., Hayashi T., Oka T. et al. Long-term outcomes and prognosis of transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy for patients with localized prostate cancer – therapy after recurrence and predictive factors. Open J Urol 2017;7(6):16.
44. D’Amico A.V., Whittington R., Malkowicz S.B. et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280(11):969–74. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.11.969
45. Horwich A., Parker C., de Reijke T. et al. Prostate cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2013;24(6):vi106–14. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdt208
46. Parker C., Castro E., Fizazi K. et al.; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2020;31(9):1119–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.011
47. Buevich N.N., Protsenko S.A., Nosov A.K. et al. The problem of choosing the tactics of managing patients with high and very high risk of prostate cancer: a review of the literature. Onkourologiya = Cancer Urology 2019;15(1):117–24. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2019-15-1-117-124
48. Briganti A., Joniau S., Gontero P. et al. Identifying the best candidate for radical prostatectomy among patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2012;61(3):584–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.043
49. Hsu C.Y., Joniau S., Oyen R. et al. Outcome of surgery for clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer: a single-institution experience. Eur Urol 2007;51(1):121–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.05.024
50. Van Poppel H. Locally advanced and high-risk prostate cancer: the best indication for initial radical prostatectomy? Asian J Urol 2014;1(1):40–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2014.09.009
51. Solodkiy V.A., Pavlov A.Yu., Gafanov R.A. et al. Localized and localized prostate cancer of high risk of progression: treatment strategy, review of clinical studies. Russkiy meditsinskiy zhurnal = Russian Medical Journal 2017;(27):2015–8. (In Russ.).
52. Stewart S.B., Boorjian S.A. Radical prostatectomy in high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer: Mayo Clinic perspective. Urol Oncol 2015;33(5):235–44. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.10.003
53. Reva S.A., Nosov А.K., Korol V.D. et al. Comparison of treatment results for patients with high-risk prostate cancer according to the EAU and NCCN criteria. Onkourologiya = Cancer Urology 2021;17(2):54–61. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2021-17-2-54-61
54. Tewari A., Divine G., Chang P. et al. Long-term survival in men with high grade prostate cancer: a comparison between conservative treatment, radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy – a propensity scoring approach. J Urol 2007;177(3):911–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.040
55. Bria E., Cuppone F., Giannarelli D. et al. Does hormone treatment added to radiotherapy improve outcome in locally advanced prostate cancer? Metaanalysis of randomized trials. Cancer 2009;115(15):3446–56. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.24392
56. Sasse A.D., Sasse E., Carvalho A.M., Macedo L.T. Androgenic suppression combined with radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate adenocarcinoma: a systematic review. BMC Cancer 2012;12:54. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-12-54
57. Iversen P. Antiandrogen monotherapy: indications and results. Urology 2002;60(3 Suppl 1):64–71. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01576-5
58. Shipley W.U., Seiferheld W., Lukka H.R. et al. Radiation with or without antiandrogen therapy in recurrent prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2017;376(5):417–28. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1607529
59. Lycken M., Garmo H., Adolfsson J. et al. Patterns of androgen deprivation therapies among men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer: a population-based study. Eur J Cancer 2014;50(10):1789–98. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.03.279
60. Hoskin P.J., Rojas A.M., Ostler P.J. et al. Randomised trial of external-beam radiotherapy alone or with high-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: Mature 12-year results. Radiother Oncol 2021;154:214–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.047
Review
For citations:
Nizamova R.S., Andreeva R.D., Vozdvizhensky M.O. Treatment of localized prostate cancer depending on the oncological risk group. Cancer Urology. 2024;20(4):112-119. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2024-20-4-112-119
Views:
175
Email this article 