Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Die Urologie
Erschienen in: Der Urologe 2/2016

01.02.2016 | Prostatakarzinom | CME

Aktive Überwachung beim Niedrig-Risiko-Prostatakarzinom

verfasst von: Dr. Annika Herlemann, Christian G. Stief

Erschienen in: Die Urologie | Ausgabe 2/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Zusammenfassung

Die hohe Prävalenz des latenten Prostatakarzinoms ist durch Autopsiestudien bekannt. Dennoch führt nur ein gewisser Anteil zu einer manifesten, therapiebedürftigen Erkrankung. Die aktive Überwachung zählt zu den therapeutischen Strategien, die laut nationalen und internationalen Leitlinien einem Patienten mit einem neu diagnostizierten Niedrig-Risiko-Prostatakarzinom angeboten werden sollten. Da die prostatakrebsspezifische Überlebensrate in dieser Patientengruppe hoch ist, kann eine definitive Therapie im Sinne einer radikalen Prostatektomie, perkutanen Strahlentherapie oder Brachytherapie hinausgezögert bzw. sogar vermieden werden. Inhärente mögliche Komplikationen dieser Behandlungsformen lassen sich so vermeiden. Trotz strenger Einschlusskriterien für die aktive Überwachung ist die zuverlässige Identifizierung von Niedrig-Risiko-Prostatakarzinomen nicht immer möglich. Entscheidet sich der Patient für eine aktive Überwachung, sind daher regelmäßige Kontrollen mit Bestimmung des prostataspezifischen Antigens (PSA) und digital-rektaler Untersuchung (DRU) sowie erneute Stanzbiopsien der Prostata unerlässlich. Durch die genomische Variabilität des Prostatakarzinoms könnte in Zukunft mithilfe einer präzisen molekularen Diagnostik eine individualisierte Therapie ermöglicht werden.
Literatur
1.
2.
Hoedemaeker RF et al (2000) Histopathological prostate cancer characteristics at radical prostatectomy after population based screening. J Urol 164(2):411–415CrossRefPubMed
3.
Heidenreich A et al (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65(1):124–137CrossRefPubMed
4.
Jahn JL, Giovannucci EL, Stampfer MJ (2015) The high prevalence of undiagnosed prostate cancer at autopsy: implications for epidemiology and treatment of prostate cancer in the Prostate-specific Antigen-era. Int J Cancer 137(12):2795–2802CrossRefPubMed
5.
Dall’Era MA et al (2008) Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the current literature. Cancer 112(8):1650–1659CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Lellig K et al (2014) Active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer. Urologe A 53(7):1031–1039CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
D’Amico AV et al (1995) A multivariate analysis of clinical and pathological factors that predict for prostate specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 154(1):131–138CrossRefPubMed
10.
Epstein JI (2011) Prognostic significance of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy specimens. J Urol 186(3):790–797CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Trpkov K et al (2010) “Insignificant” prostate cancer on prostatectomy and cystoprostatectomy: variation on a theme “low-volume/low-grad” prostate cancer? Br J Urol Int 106(3):304–315CrossRef
13.
Stamey TA et al (1993) Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 71(3 Suppl):933–938CrossRefPubMed
14.
Epstein JI et al (1994) Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 271(5):368–374CrossRefPubMed
15.
Epstein JI et al (1998) Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. J Urol 160(6 Pt 2):2407–2411PubMed
16.
Winkler MH et al (2007) Characteristics of incidental prostatic adenocarcinoma in contemporary radical cystoprostatectomy specimens. Br J Urol Int 99(3):554–558CrossRef
17.
Wolters T et al (2011) A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 185(1):121–125CrossRefPubMed
18.
Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144(5):646–674CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
Ahmed HU et al (2012) Do low-grade and low-volume prostate cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy? Lancet Oncol 13(11):e509–e517CrossRefPubMed
21.
Arora R et al (2004) Heterogeneity of Gleason grade in multifocal adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 100(11):2362–2366CrossRefPubMed
22.
Lindberg J et al (2013) Exome sequencing of prostate cancer supports the hypothesis of independent tumour origins. Eur Urol 63(2):347–353CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
25.
Boyd LK et al (2012) High-resolution genome-wide copy-number analysis suggests a monoclonal origin of multifocal prostate cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 51(6):579–589CrossRefPubMed
26.
Taneja SS (2014) Re: tracking the clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer. J Urol 191(5):1286–1289
27.
Cooper CS et al (2015) Analysis of the genetic phylogeny of multifocal prostate cancer identifies multiple independent clonal expansions in neoplastic and morphologically normal prostate tissue. Nat Genet 47(4):367–372CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
29.
Ploussard G et al (2015) Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study of 2,323 patients. Urol Oncol 33(2):e1–e9CrossRef
30.
de Camargo Cancela M, Comber H, Sharp L (2013) Age remains the major predictor of curative treatment non-receipt for localised prostate cancer: a population-based study. Br J Cancer 109(1):272–279CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
32.
Wong LM et al (2015) Evaluation of models predicting insignificant prostate cancer to select men for active surveillance of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 18(2):137–143CrossRefPubMed
33.
Chun FK et al (2008) Critical assessment of tools to predict clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in contemporary men. Cancer 113(4):701–709CrossRefPubMed
34.
Wang SY et al (2014) Limited ability of existing nomograms to predict outcomes in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer. Br J Urol Int 114(6b):E18–E24CrossRef
35.
Karl A et al (2015) The natural course of pT2 prostate cancer with positive surgical margin: predicting biochemical recurrence. World J Urol 33(7):973–979CrossRefPubMed
36.
Dinh KT et al (2015) Incidence and predictors of upgrading and up staging among 10,000 contemporary patients with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 194(2):343–349CrossRefPubMed
37.
Lellig E et al (2015) Final pathohistology after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (AS). World J Urol 33(7):917–922CrossRefPubMed
38.
Heidegger I et al (2015) High risk of under-grading and -staging in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance. PloS One 10(2):e0115537CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Griffin CR et al (2007) Pathological features after radical prostatectomy in potential candidates for active monitoring. J Urol 178(3 Pt 1):860–863 (discussion 863)CrossRefPubMed
40.
Gofrit ON et al (2007) Predicting the risk of patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 to harbor a higher grade cancer. J Urol 178(5):1925–1928CrossRefPubMed
41.
Rapiti E et al (2013) Importance and determinants of Gleason score undergrading on biopsy sample of prostate cancer in a population-based study. Bio Med Central Urol 13:19CrossRef
42.
Davis JW et al (2015) Disease reclassification risk with stringent criteria and frequent monitoring in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance. Br J Urol Int. doi:10.1111/bju.13193
43.
Choo R et al (2004) Wide variation of prostate-specific antigen doubling time of untreated, clinically localized, low-to-intermediate grade, prostate carcinoma. Br J Urol Int 94(3):295–298CrossRef
44.
Teahan SJ, Klotz LH (2006) Current role of prostate-specific antigen kinetics in managing patients with prostate cancer. Br J Urol Int 97(3):451–455CrossRef
45.
McLaren DB et al (1998) Watchful waiting or watchful progression?: Prostate specific antigen doubling times and clinical behavior in patients with early untreated prostate carcinoma. Cancer 82(2):342–348CrossRefPubMed
46.
Ross AE et al (2010) Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol 28(17):2810–2816CrossRefPubMed
47.
Whitson JM et al (2011) The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 185(5):1656–1660CrossRefPubMed
48.
Iremashvili V et al (2013) Comprehensive analysis of post-diagnostic prostate-specific antigen kinetics as predictor of a prostate cancer progression in active surveillance patients. Br J Urol Int 111(3):396–403CrossRef
49.
Klotz L et al (2015) Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33(3):272–277CrossRefPubMed
50.
Tosoian JJ et al (2015) Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33(30):3379–3385CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Freedland SJ et al (2006) Delay of radical prostatectomy and risk of biochemical progression in men with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 175(4):1298–1302 (discussion 1302–1303)CrossRefPubMed
52.
O’Brien D et al (2011) Delay of surgery in men with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 185(6):2143–2147CrossRefPubMed
53.
Klotz L (2011) Re: Delay of surgery in men with low risk prostate cancer: D O’Brien, S Loeb, G F Carvalhal, B B McGuire, D Kan, M D Hofer, J T Casey, B T Helf and W J Catalona. J Urol 2011; 185: 2143–2147. J Urol 186(6):2505 (author reply 2506)CrossRefPubMed
54.
van den Bergh RC (2011) Words of wisdom: Re: Delay of surgery in men with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 60(3):597–598CrossRefPubMed
55.
Berg WT et al (2015) Delay from biopsy to radical prostatectomy influences the rate of adverse pathologic outcomes. Prostate 75(10):1085–1091CrossRefPubMed
56.
Holmstrom B et al (2010) Outcome of primary versus deferred radical prostatectomy in the national prostate cancer register of sweden follow-up study. J Urol 184(4):1322–1327CrossRefPubMed
57.
Shappley WV 3rd et al (2009) Prospective study of determinants and outcomes of deferred treatment or watchful waiting among men with prostate cancer in a nationwide cohort. J Clin Oncol 27(30):4980–4985CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
59.
van den Bergh RC et al (2010) Is delayed radical prostatectomy in men with low-risk screen-detected prostate cancer associated with a higher risk of unfavorable outcomes? Cancer 116(5):1281–1290CrossRefPubMed
60.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2014) NICE clinical guideline 175. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and treatment. http://​www.​nice.​org.​uk/​guidance/​cg175/​chapter/​1-recommendations#localised-and-locally-advanced-prostate-cancer-2. Zugegriffen: 24 November 2015
61.
Futterer JJ et al (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68(6):1045–1053CrossRefPubMed
62.
de Rooij M et al (2015) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol. doi:10.3410/f.725679060.793512189
63.
Billing A et al (2015) Preoperative mp-MRI of the prostate provides little information about staging of prostate carcinoma in daily clinical practice. World J Urol 33(7):923–928CrossRefPubMed
64.
Otto J et al (2014) Value of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T for the local staging of prostate cancer. Rofo 186(8):795–802CrossRefPubMed
65.
Ruprecht O et al (2012) MRI of the prostate: interobserver agreement compared with histopathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Radiol 81(3):456–460CrossRefPubMed
66.
Tay KJ et al (2015) Defining the incremental utility of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at standard and specialized read in predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.041
67.
Latchamsetty KC et al (2007) Experience improves staging accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: what is the learning curve? Can J Urol 14(1):3429–3434PubMed
68.
Kazer MW et al (2013) Psychosocial aspects of active surveillance. Curr Opin Urol 23(3):273–277PubMed
69.
Seiler D et al (2012) Protocol-based active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: anxiety levels in both men and their partners. Urology 80(3):564–569CrossRefPubMed
70.
71.
Klotz L (2013) Active surveillance, quality of life, and cancer-related anxiety. Eur Urol 64(1):37–39CrossRefPubMed
72.
Bul M et al (2012) Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: results from a prospective observational study. Eur Urol 62(2):195–200CrossRefPubMed
73.
Davison BJ, Goldenberg SL (2011) Patient acceptance of active surveillance as a treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer. Br J Urol Int 108(11):1787–1793CrossRef
74.
Vasarainen H et al (2012) Prostate cancer active surveillance and health-related quality of life: results of the Finnish arm of the prospective trial. Br J Urol Int 109(11):1614–1619CrossRef
75.
Bill-Axelson A et al (2011) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 364(18):1708–1717CrossRefPubMed
76.
Steineck G et al (2002) Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting. N Engl J Med 347(11):790–796CrossRefPubMed
77.
Burnet KL et al (2007) Does active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer carry psychological morbidity? Br J Urol Int 100(3):540–543CrossRef
78.
Bellardita L et al (2015) How does active surveillance for prostate cancer affect quality of life? A systematic review. Eur Urol 67(4):637–645CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Aktive Überwachung beim Niedrig-Risiko-Prostatakarzinom
verfasst von
Dr. Annika Herlemann
Christian G. Stief
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2016
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Die Urologie / Ausgabe 2/2016
Print ISSN: 2731-7064
Elektronische ISSN: 2731-7072
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-015-0025-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2016

Der Urologe 2/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Übersichten

Kardiovaskuläre Risikopatienten unter Androgenentzugstherapie

BDU-Journal – Berufspolitik

BDU-Journal – Berufspolitik

Originalien

Der Parameter „Relatives Überleben“

Journal Club

Erste Geburt nach erfolgreicher Uterustransplantation

Originalien

Stellenwert der MRT/TRUS-Fusionsbiopsie im Rahmen der Primärbiopsie beim Prostatakarzinom

Übersichten

Salvagelymphadenektomie beim Rezidiv eines Prostatakarzinoms

Weitere Lesetipps

ANZEIGE

Sichere Antikoagulation bei ständig wechselnden Risikokonstellationen

Harninkontinenz nach radikaler Prostatektomie – wichtige Daten für die Patientenaufklärung

ANZEIGE

Krebsassoziierte Thrombosen – ein steigendes Problem

Präoperative Therapie des Rektumkarzinoms - kritische Anmerkungen zur PROSPECT-Studie

„Darmkrebs-Screening für Männer besser schon ab 40“

ANZEIGE

Herausforderungen und Management krebsassoziierter Thrombosen

Bildnachweise