Активное наблюдение при раке предстательной железы промежуточной группы риска

Активное наблюдение при раке предстательной железы промежуточной группы риска

Автор: Кокин Сергей Петрович, Нюшко К.М., Алексеев Б.Я., Маилян О.А.

Журнал: Экспериментальная и клиническая урология @ecuro

Рубрика: Онкоурология

Статья в выпуске: 3 т.15, 2022 года.

Бесплатный доступ

Введение. Рак предстательной железы (РПЖ) является одним из наиболее часто встречаемых злокачественных заболеваний в мире у мужчин. «Золотым стандартом» лечения данной патологии остается радикальная простатэктомия. Хорошие отдаленные онкологические результаты Активного наблюдения (АН) пациентов низкой группы риска, а также модификация шкалы Глисона позволила говорить о возможности использования АН у тщательно отобранных пациентов с РПЖ промежуточной группы риска. Внедрение в практику молекулярно-генетических маркеров дает возможность персонализировано выбирать метод лечения. Цель исследования. Провести систематический обзор литературы, посвященный анализу активного наблюдения у пациентов с РПЖ промежуточной группы риска и существующих молекулярно-генетических маркеров для дополнительной стратификации рисков. Материалы и методы. При написании обзора были использованы данные об активном наблюдении при РПЖ, опубликованные в базах данных PubMed, Cochrane, e-Library. Поиск в базах данных производился по следующим ключевым словам: активное наблюдение - active surveillance, рак предстательной железы - prostate cancer, промежуточная группа риска - intermediate risk, молекулярно-генетические маркеры - molecular genetic markers. Результаты. В данный обзор отобрано 39 статей, из которых 24 посвящено Активному наблюдению, 15 - молекулярно-генетическим маркерам агрессивности РПЖ. При анализе результатов АН оценивались такие параметры как процент пациентов без активного (радикального) лечения, общая выживаемость, опухоль-специфическая выживаемость, выживаемость без метастазирования. Выводы. В настоящее время АН при РПЖ возможно к применению для узкой, тщательно отобранной группы пациентов промежуточной группы риска, внедрение современных молекулярно-генетических маркеров позволит более точно определять объем лечения без ухудшения отдаленных онкологических результатов.

Еще

Рак предстательной железы, активное наблюдение, рак предстательной железы промежуточной группы риска, молекулярно-генетические маркеры рпж

Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/142236641

IDR: 142236641   |   DOI: 10.29188/2222-8543-2022-15-3-55-63

Список литературы Активное наблюдение при раке предстательной железы промежуточной группы риска

  • Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR. Contemporary trends in low-risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 2007;178(3 Pt 2):S14-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.juro.2007.03.135.
  • Bell KJL, Del Mar C, Wright G, Dickinson J, Glasziou P. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: a systematic review of autopsy studies. Int J Cancer 2015;137(7):1749-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/ ijc.29538.
  • Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C, Morton GC, Deboer G, Szumacher E, et al. Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. J Urol 2002;167(4 l):1664-9.
  • Dallera MA, Cooperberg MR, Chan JM, Davies BJ, Albertsen PC, Klotz LH, et al. Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the current literature. Cancer 2008;112(8):1650-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23373.
  • Selvadurai ED, Singhera M, Thomas K, Mohammed K, Woode-Amissah R, Horwich A, et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2013;64(6):981-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.02.020.
  • Welty CJ, Cowan JE, Nguyen H, Shinohara K, Perez N, Greene KL, et al. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2015;193(3):807-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.094.
  • Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33(3):272-7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JC0.2014.55.1192.
  • Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein Jl, Landis P, Wolf S, Trock BJ, Carter HB. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33(30):3379-85. https://doi.org/10.1200/JC0.2015.62.5764.
  • Newcomb LF, Jr IMT, Boyer HD, Brooks JD, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, multi-institutional Canary PASS cohort. J Urol 2016;195(2):206-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.juro.2015.08.087
  • Marenghi C, Alvisi MF, Palorini F, Avuzzi B, Badenchini F, Bedini N, et al. Eleven-year management of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance: what have we learned? Tumori 2017;103(5):464-74. https://doi.org/10.5301/tj.5000649.
  • Thomsen FB, Roder MA, Hvarness H, Iversen P, Brasso K. Active surveillance can reduce overtreat-ment in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Dan Med J 2013;60(2):1-6.
  • Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, Kakehi Y, Pickles T, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.007.
  • Shill DK, Roobol MJ, Ehdaie B, Vickers AJ, Carlsson SV Active surveillance for prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2021;10(6):2809-19. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1370.
  • Nelson WG, Carter HB, DeWeese TL, Antonarakis ES, Eisenberger MA. Prostate Cancer. in book: Abeloff's Clin Oncol Sedition 2014;1463-1496.e9 p. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ B978-1-4557-2865-7.00084-9.
  • Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, Acosta K, Kava B, Manoharan M. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 2010;58(6):831-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.027.
  • Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, van den Bergh RC, van Casteren N, Cornford P, et al. Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Update. Eur Assoc Urol. URL: https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/#3.
  • Parker C, Castro E, Fizazi K, Heidenreich A, Ost P, Procopio G, et al. Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2020;31(9):1119-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.011.
  • Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, Chen RC, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. J Urol 2017;199(3):683-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.juro.2017.11.095.
  • Van Leenders GJLH, Van Der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ, Evans AJ, Kristiansen G, Kweldam CF, et al. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2020;44(8):E87-99. https://doi.org/10.1097/ PAS.0000000000001497.
  • Bul M, Van Den Bergh RC, Zhu X, Rannikko A, Vasarainen H, Bangma CH, et al. Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012;110(11):1672-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11434x
  • Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, Stranne J, Hugosson J. Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol 2013;63(1):101-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.eururo.2012.08.066.
  • Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF, Reese AC, Zaid HB, Porten SP, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29(2):228-34. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.31.4252.
  • Masic S, Cowan JE, Washington SL, Nguyen HG, Shinohara K, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Effects of initial Gleason grade on outcomes during active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 2018;1(5):386-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.04.018.
  • Balakrishnan AS, Cowan JE, Cooperberg MR, Shinohara K, Nguyen HG, Carroll PR. Evaluating the safety of active surveillance: outcomes of deferred radical prostatectomy after an initial period of surveillance. J Urol 2019;202(3):506-10. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000247.
  • Van Den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Aus G, Hugosson J, Rannikko AS, et al. Gleason score 7 screen-detected prostate cancers initially managed expectantly: outcomes in 50 men. BJU Int 2009;103(11):1472-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08281.x.
  • Waisman Malaret AJ, Chang P, Zhu K, Zheng Y, Newcomb LF, Liu M, et al. Evaluating the outcomes of active surveillance in grade group 2 prostate cancer: prospective results from the Canary PASS Cohort. J Urol 2022;207(4):805-813. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002354.
  • Thomsen FB, Jakobsen H, Langkilde NC, Borre M, Jakobsen EB, Frey A, et al. Active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: nationwide observational study. J Urol 2019;201(3):520-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.09.045.
  • Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, Pihl CG, Stranne J, Hugosson J. Long-term results of active surveillance in the Göteborg randomized, population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol 2016;70(5):760-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.03.048.
  • Savdie R, Aning J, So AI, Black PC, Gleave ME, Goldenberg SL. Identifying intermediate-risk candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2017;35(10):605.e1-605.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.06.048.
  • Musunuru HB, Yamamoto T, Klotz L, Ghanem G, Mamedov A, Sethukavalan P, et al. Active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer: survival outcomes in the Sunnybrook experience. J Urol 2016;196(6):1651-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.102.
  • Jiang Y, Meyers TJ, Emeka AA, Cooley LF, Cooper PR, Lancki N, et al. Genetic factors associated with prostate cancer conversion from active surveillance to treatment. HGG Adv 2022;3(1):100070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xhgg.2021.100070.
  • Salari K, Kuppermann D, Preston MA, Dahl DM, Barrisford GW, Efstathiou JA, et al. Active surveillance of prostate cancer is a viable option for men younger than 60 years. J Urol 2019;201(4):721-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000031.
  • Agrawal V Ma X, Hu JC, Barbieri CE, Nagar H. Active surveillance for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2021;205(1):115-21. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001241.
  • Jairath NK, Dal Pra A, Vince R, Dess RT, Jackson WC, Tosoian JJ, et al. A Systematic review of the evidence for the decipher genomic classifier in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2021;79(3):374-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.021.
  • Kim HL, Li P, Huang HC, Deheshi S, Marti T, Knudsen B, et al. Validation of the Decipher Test for predicting adverse pathology in candidates for prostate cancer active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2019;22(3):399-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0101-6.
  • Herlemann A, Huang HC, Alam R, Tosoian JJ, Kim HL, Klein EA, et al. Decipher identifies men with otherwise clinically favorable-intermediate risk disease who may not be good candidates for active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2020;23(1):136-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s41391-019-0167-9.
  • Cullen J, Rosner IL, Brand TC, Zhang N, Tsiatis AC, Moncur J, et al. A biopsy-based 17-gene genomic prostate score predicts recurrence after radical prostatectomy and adverse surgical pathology in a racially diverse population of men with clinically low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2015;68(1):123-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.030.
  • Brand TC, Zhang N, Crager MR, Maddala T, Dee A, Sesterhenn IA, et al. Patient-specific meta-analysis of 2 clinical validation studies to predict pathologic outcomes in prostate cancer using the 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score. Urology 2016(89):69-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.urology.2015.12.008.
  • Covas Moschovas M, Chew C, Bhat S, Sandri M, Rogers T, Dell'Oglio P, et al. Association between oncotype DX Genomic Prostate Score and adverse tumor pathology after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus 2022;8(2):418-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.03.015.
  • Kornberg Z, Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Chan JM, Shinohara K, Simko JP, et al. A 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score as a predictor of adverse pathology in men on active surveillance. J Urol 2019;202(4):702-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000290.
  • Bjartell AS. Re: 17-Gene Genomic Prostate Score Test Resultsin the canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS) cohort. Eur Urol 2020;78(4):632. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.eururo.2020.06.008.
  • Sommariva S, Tarricone R, Lazzeri M, Ricciardi W, Montorsi F. Prognostic value of the Cell Cycle Progression Score in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2016;69(1):107-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.038.
  • Shangguan X, Qian H, Jiang Z, Xin Z, Pan J, Dong B, Xue W. Cell Cycle Progression Score improves risk stratification in prostate cancer patients with adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2020;146(3):687-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-019-03089-6.
  • Canter DJ, Freedland S, Rajamani S, Latsis M, Variano M, Halat S, et al. Analysis of the prognostic utility of the Cell Cycle Progression (CCP) score generated from needle biopsy in men treated with definitive therapy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2020;23( 1): 102-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s41391-019-0159-9.
  • Morris DS, Woods JS, Edwards B, Lenz L, Logan J, Flake DD, et al. Prognostic capabilities and clinical utility of cell cycle progression testing, prostate imaging reporting and data system, version 2, and clinicopathologic data in management of localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2021;39(6):366.e19-366.e28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.11.016.
  • Shipitsin M, Small C, Choudhury S, Giladi E, Friedlander S, Nardone J, et al. Identification of pro-teomic biomarkers predicting prostate cancer aggressiveness and lethality despite biopsy-sampling error. Br J Cancer 2014;111(6):1201-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2014.396.
  • Shipitsin M, Small C, Giladi E, Siddiqui S, Choudhury S, Hussain S, et al. Automated quantitative multiplex immunofluorescence in situ imaging identifies phospho-S6 and phospho-PRAS40 as predictive protein biomarkers for prostate cancer lethality. Proteome Sci 2014;12(1):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-5956-12-40.
  • Blume-Jensen P, Berman DM, Rimm DL, Shipitsin M, Putzi M, Nifong TP, et al. Development and clinical validation of an in situ biopsy-based multimarker assay for risk stratification in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2015;21(11):2591-600. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2603.
Еще
Статья научная
SciUp 2024 © 2024 ©