RESUMO
INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVOS: Dentro del cambio de paradigma de la última década en el manejo del cáncer de próstata (CaP), quizás el hecho más relevante haya sido la irrupción de la vigilancia activa (VA) como estrategia obligada en el de bajo riesgo. Realizamos una revisión crítica de las mejoras clínicas, anatomopatológicas y radiológicas que permiten optimizar la VA en 2021. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Revisión crítica narrativa de la literatura en los temas de mejora y en los aspectos controvertidos de la VA. RESULTADOS: El buen uso de los criterios clásicos, optimizados por una mejor técnica de biopsia y cálculo del volumen prostático gracias a la resonancia magnética multiparamétrica (RMmp), permite una mejor selección de pacientes para VA. No se debe restringir la VA en menores de 60 años y se debe seleccionar qué pacientes con CaP de riesgo intermedio pueden incluirse en VA. Las biopsias siguen siendo necesarias en el seguimiento, pero este se puede individualizar según patrones de riesgo. El patólogo ha de reseñar el patrón cribiforme o intraductal en las biopsias para no ser incluidos en VA, al igual que los pacientes con alteraciones en los genes de reparación del ADN. CONCLUSIONES: Se debe seguir optimizando las indicaciones controvertidas, como la inclusión de pacientes de grupo intermedio o el paso a tratamiento activo por progresión exclusiva en volumen tumoral. Es posible que el concurso futuro de biomarcadores tisulares, el refinamiento de parámetros objetivos de la RMmp y la validación de calculadoras cinéticas del PSA puedan subestratificar grupos de riesgo
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Within the paradigm shift of the last decade in the management of prostate cancer (PCa), perhaps the most relevant event has been the emergence of active surveillance (AS) as a mandatory strategy in low-risk disease. We carry out a critical review of the clinical, pathological and radiological improvements that allow optimizing AS in 2021. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Critical narrative review of the literature on improvement issues and controversial aspects of AS. RESULTS: Adequate use of traditional criteria, optimized by enhanced biopsy and calculation of the prostate volume technique thanks to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) allow a better selection of patients for AS. This management should not be limited to patients under 60years of age, and patients with intermediate-risk PCa should be carefully selected to be included. Biopsies are still required in the follow-up, which can be personalized according to risk patterns. The pathologist must identify the cribriform or intraductal histology on biopsies in order to exclude these patients from AS, in the same way as with patients with alterations in DNA repair genes. CONCLUSIONS: Controversial indications such as the inclusion of patients from intermediate-risk groups, or the transition to active treatment due to exclusive progression in tumor volume, should be further optimized. It is possible that the future competition of tissue biomarkers, the refinement of objective parameters of mpMRI and the validation of PSA kinetics calculators may sub-stratify risk groups
Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Conduta Expectante/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Conduta Expectante/tendências , Medição de Risco/métodos , Fatores de Risco , Qualidade de Vida , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Progressão da DoençaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Within the paradigm shift of the last decade in the management of prostate cancer (PCa), perhaps the most relevant event has been the emergence of active surveillance (AS) as a mandatory strategy in low-risk disease. We carry out a critical review of the clinical, pathological and radiological improvements that allow optimizing AS in 2021. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Critical narrative review of the literature on improvement issues and controversial aspects of AS. RESULTS: Adequate use of traditional criteria, optimized by enhanced biopsy and calculation of the prostate volume technique thanks to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) allow a better selection of patients for AS. This management should not be limited to patients under 60years of age, and patients with intermediate-risk PCa should be carefully selected to be included. Biopsies are still required in the follow-up, which can be personalized according to risk patterns. The pathologist must identify the cribriform or intraductal histology on biopsies in order to exclude these patients from AS, in the same way as with patients with alterations in DNA repair genes. CONCLUSIONS: Controversial indications such as the inclusion of patients from intermediate-risk groups, or the transition to active treatment due to exclusive progression in tumor volume, should be further optimized. It is possible that the future competition of tissue biomarkers, the refinement of objective parameters of mpMRI and the validation of PSA kinetics calculators may sub-stratify risk groups.
