Prostat Kanseri
Özet
Prostat kanseri tedavisi sonrası izleme, hastalığın nüksünü, ilerlemesini veya metastaz yapmasını erken dönemde tespit etmek için büyük önem taşır. Takip süreci, kanserin tedaviye nasıl yanıt verdiği ve hastanın genel durumu göz önünde bulundurularak kişiselleştirilir. En yaygın izleme yöntemi, prostat spesifik antijen (PSA) testi ile PSA düzeylerinin düzenli olarak ölçülmesidir. PSA, tedavi sonrası sıklıkla düşüş gösterse de, belirli bir seviyede stabil kalması veya artış göstermesi durumunda hastalığın yeniden ortaya çıkabileceği şüpheleri doğurur. PSA artışı, erken evrelerde kanserin nüks ettiğine dair bir belirti olabilir, bu durumda ek görüntüleme yöntemlerine (örneğin, prostat MR'ı, bilgisayarlı tomografi (BT) veya kemik sintigrafisi) başvurulabilir. Ayrıca, dijital rektal muayene (DRM) ile prostatın fiziksel durumu da değerlendirilir. Takip sıklığı, kanserin evresi, tedavi yöntemi (cerrahi, radyoterapi, hormon tedavisi veya kemoterapi) ve hastanın genel sağlık durumuna göre değişiklik gösterir. Genellikle tedavi sonrası ilk yıllarda izlemeler daha sık yapılırken, hastanın durumu stabil hale geldikçe takip aralıkları uzatılabilir. Bu süreç, nüksün erken dönemde tespit edilmesi, tedavi seçeneklerinin belirlenmesi ve hastanın yaşam kalitesinin korunması açısından büyük bir önem taşır. Aynı zamanda, metastatik hastalık gelişimi durumunda tedavi stratejileri hızla gözden geçirilerek, hastaya en uygun yaklaşım belirlenir. Prostat kanseri takibi, multidisipliner bir ekip çalışması ile, hastanın hem fiziksel hem de psikolojik sağlığını destekleyecek şekilde yönetilmelidir.
Follow-up after treatment for prostate cancer is crucial to detect recurrence, progression or metastasis of the disease at an early stage. The follow-up process is individualized, taking into account how the cancer is responding to treatment and the patient's general condition. The most common method of monitoring is regular measurement of PSA levels with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. Although PSA often decreases after treatment, if it remains stable at a certain level or increases, it raises suspicions that the disease may reappear. An increase in PSA may be a sign of cancer recurrence in the early stages, in which case additional imaging modalities (e.g. prostate MRI, computed tomography (CT) or bone scintigraphy) may be indicated. The physical condition of the prostate is also assessed by digital rectal examination (DRM). The frequency of follow-up depends on the stage of the cancer, the treatment method (surgery, radiotherapy, hormone therapy or chemotherapy) and the patient's general health. Usually, follow-ups are more frequent in the first few years after treatment, but as the patient's condition stabilizes, follow-up intervals may be extended. This process is crucial for early detection of recurrence, determining treatment options and maintaining the patient's quality of life. At the same time, in case of the development of metastatic disease, treatment strategies are rapidly reviewed to determine the most appropriate approach for the patient. Prostate cancer follow-up should be managed with a multidisciplinary teamwork to support both the physical and psychological health of the patient.
Referanslar
Siegel, R.L., et al., Cancer statistics, 2021. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, 2021. 71(1): p. 7-33.
Potosky, A.L., et al., Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2004. 96(18): p. 1358-1367.
Gleason, D.F., Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother. Rep., 1966. 50: p. 125-128.
Fernandes, M.C., et al., The role of MRI in prostate cancer: current and future directions. Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, 2022. 35(4): p. 503-521.
Mottet, N., et al., EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. European urology, 2021. 79(2): p. 243-262.
Schröder, F., et al., Androgen deprivation therapy: past, present and future. BJU international, 2012. 109: p. 1-12.
Stephenson, A.J., et al., Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Journal of clinical oncology, 2005. 23(28): p. 7005-7012.
Davis, K.M., et al., The association of long-term treatment-related side effects with cancer-specific and general quality of life among prostate cancer survivors. Urology, 2014. 84(2): p. 300-306.
Afshar-Oromieh, A., et al., PET imaging with a [68 Ga] gallium-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: biodistribution in humans and first evaluation of tumour lesions. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2013. 40: p. 486-495.
Klotz, L., Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Current urology reports, 2015. 16: p. 1-10.
Vickers, A.J., Statistical considerations for patient selection and triggers for intervention in active surveillance, in Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer: A New Paradigm for Clinical Management. 2012, Springer. p. 121-129.
Partin, A.W., et al., Evaluation of serum prostate-specific antigen velocity after radical prostatectomy to distinguish local recurrence from distant metastases. Urology, 1994. 43(5): p. 649-659.
Buyyounouski, M.K., et al., Defining biochemical failure after radiotherapy with and without androgen deprivation for prostate cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics, 2005. 63(5): p. 1455-1462.
Pittman, T.W., et al., Saliva-based microfluidic point-of-care diagnostic. Theranostics, 2023. 13(3): p. 1091.
Meehan, J., et al., Tissue-and liquid-based biomarkers in prostate cancer precision medicine. Journal of personalized medicine, 2021. 11(7): p. 664.
Schaeffer, E.M., et al., Prostate Cancer, Version 3.2024: Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2024. 22(3): p. 140-150.
Caire, A.A., et al., Delayed prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy: how to identify and what are their clinical outcomes? Urology, 2009. 74(3): p. 643-647.
Leyh-Bannurah, S.-R., et al., Assessment of oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy according to preoperative and postoperative cancer of the prostate risk assessment scores: results from a large, two-center experience. European urology focus, 2019. 5(4): p. 568-576.
Martini, A., et al., Defining the most informative intermediate clinical endpoints for predicting overall survival in patients treated with radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. European urology oncology, 2019. 2(4): p. 456-463.
Gabriele, D., et al., Beyond D’Amico risk classes for predicting recurrence after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the Candiolo classifier. Radiation Oncology, 2016. 11: p. 1-10.
Thurtle, D.R., et al., Individual prognosis at diagnosis in nonmetastatic prostate cancer: Development and external validation of the PREDICT Prostate multivariable model. PLoS medicine, 2019. 16(3): p. e1002758.
Punnen, S., et al., Management of biochemical recurrence after primary treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. European urology, 2013. 64(6): p. 905-915.
Pound, C.R., et al., Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. Jama, 1999. 281(17): p. 1591-1597.
Antonarakis, E.S., et al., The natural history of metastatic progression in men with prostate‐specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy: long‐term follow‐up. BJU international, 2012. 109(1): p. 32-39.
Brockman, J.A., et al., Nomogram predicting prostate cancer–specific mortality for men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. European urology, 2015. 67(6): p. 1160-1167.
Bekelman, J.E., 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. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2018. 36(32): p. 3251-3258.
Eastham, J.A., et al., Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO guideline, part II: principles of active surveillance, principles of surgery, and follow-up. Journal of Urology, 2022. 208(1): p. 19-25.
Pound, C.R., et al., Digital rectal examination and imaging studies are unnecessary in men with undetectable prostate specific antigen following radical prostatectomy. The Journal of urology, 1999. 162(4): p. 1337-1340.
Johnstone, P.A., et al., Efficacy of digital rectal examination after radiotherapy for prostate cancer. The Journal of urology, 2001. 166(5): p. 1684-1687.
OBEK, C., et al., Is there a role for digital rectal examination in the followup of patients after radical prostatectomy? The Journal of urology, 1999. 162(3): p. 762-764.
CHER, M.L., et al., Limited role of radionuclide bone scintigraphy in patients with prostate specific antigen elevations after radical prostatectomy. The Journal of urology, 1998. 160(4): p. 1387-1391.
Dotan, Z.A., et al., Pattern of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure dictates the probability of a positive bone scan in patients with an increasing PSA after radical prostatectomy. Journal of clinical oncology, 2005. 23(9): p. 1962-1968.
Heidenreich, A., et al., EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. European urology, 2014. 65(2): p. 467-479.
Crawford, E.D., et al., A clinician’s guide to next generation imaging in patients with advanced prostate cancer (RADAR III). The Journal of urology, 2019. 201(4): p. 682-692.
Hennrich, U. and M. Eder, [68Ga] Ga-PSMA-11: the first FDA-approved 68Ga-radiopharmaceutical for PET imaging of prostate cancer. Pharmaceuticals, 2021. 14(8): p. 713.
Voter, A.F., et al., Piflufolastat F-18 (18F-DCFPyL) for PSMA PET imaging in prostate cancer. Expert review of anticancer therapy, 2022. 22(7): p. 681-694.
Dall’Era, M.A., et al., Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. European urology, 2012. 62(6): p. 976-983.
Resnick, M.J., et al., Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 2013. 368(5): p. 436-445.
Dahabreh, I.J., et al., Active surveillance in men with localized prostate cancer: a systematic review. Annals of internal medicine, 2012. 156(8): p. 582-590.
Dall'Era, M.A., et al., Active surveillance for early‐stage prostate cancer: review of the current literature. Cancer: Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society, 2008. 112(8): p. 1650-1659.
Klotz, L., Active surveillance for prostate cancer: trials and tribulations. World journal of urology, 2008. 26: p. 437-442.
Bill-Axelson, A., et al., Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in prostate cancer—29-year follow-up. New England Journal of Medicine, 2018. 379(24): p. 2319-2329.
Wilt, T.J., et al., Radical prostatectomy or observation for clinically localized prostate cancer: extended follow-up of the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT). European urology, 2020. 77(6): p. 713-724.
Hamdy, F.C., et al., Fifteen-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 2023. 388(17): p. 1547-1558.
Network, N.C.C., NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). (No Title), 2017.
Giri, V.N., et al., Implementation of germline testing for prostate cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2020. 38(24): p. 2798-2811.
Carter, H.B., et al., Germline mutations in ATM and BRCA1/2 are associated with grade reclassification in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. European urology, 2019. 75(5): p. 743-749.
Loeb, S., et al., How active is active surveillance? Intensity of followup during active surveillance for prostate cancer in the United States. The Journal of urology, 2016. 196(3): p. 721-726.
Kirk, P.S., et al., Treatment in the absence of disease reclassification among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Cancer, 2022. 128(2): p. 269-274.
Loeb, S., et al., Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer. European urology, 2015. 67(2): p. 233-238.
Inoue, L.Y., et al., Comparative analysis of biopsy upgrading in four prostate cancer active surveillance cohorts. Annals of internal medicine, 2018. 168(1): p. 1-9.
Conteduca, V., et al., Clinical features of neuroendocrine prostate cancer. European journal of cancer, 2019. 121: p. 7-18.
Armstrong, A.J., et al., Phase 3 assessment of the automated bone scan index as a prognostic imaging biomarker of overall survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA oncology, 2018. 4(7): p. 944-951.
Scher, H.I., et al., Trial design and objectives for castration-resistant prostate cancer: updated recommendations from the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2016. 34(12): p. 1402-1418.
Armstrong, A.J., et al., Association between new unconfirmed bone lesions and outcomes in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide: secondary analysis of the PREVAIL and AFFIRM randomized clinical trials. JAMA oncology, 2020. 6(2): p. 217-225.
Trabulsi, E.J., et al., Optimum imaging strategies for advanced prostate cancer: ASCO guideline. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2020. 38(17): p. 1963-1996.
