Abstract
The adverse effects of overdiagnosis and overtreatment observed in men with clinically insignificant prostate cancers after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen-based screening are now being observed in those with thyroid cancer, owing to the introduction of new imaging technologies. Thus, the evolving paradigm of active surveillance in prostate and thyroid cancers might be valuable in informing the development of future active surveillance protocols. The lessons learned from active surveillance and their implications include the need to minimize the use of broad, population-based screening programmes that do not incorporate patient education and the need for individualized or shared decision-making, which can decrease the extent of overtreatment. Furthermore, from the experience in patients with prostate cancer, we have learned that consensus is required regarding the optimal selection of patients for active surveillance, using more-specific evidence-based methods for stratifying patients by risk. In this Review, we describe the epidemiology, pathology and screening guidelines for the management of patients with prostate and thyroid cancers; the evidence of overdiagnosis and overtreatment; and provide overviews of existing international active surveillance protocols.
Key points
-
The harms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment that were observed in patients with prostate cancer following the introduction of prostate-specific antigen based screening are now being observed in those with thyroid cancer.
-
Broad population-based screening can lead to the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of indolent cancers, as originally seen in prostate cancer and now also seen in thyroid cancer.
-
Data from clinical trials demonstrate that active surveillance is an appropriate management strategy for patients with low-risk prostate cancer, and the results from similar trials in those with thyroid cancer are promising.
-
Consensus is needed regarding both the optimal approach to patient selection for active surveillance and the most appropriate active surveillance scheduling and monitoring strategies.
-
More specific methods of stratifying patients by risk, before consideration for active surveillance, are needed.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Carter, S. M. et al. The challenge of overdiagnosis begins with its definition. BMJ 350, h869 (2015).
US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 319, 1901–1913 (2018).
Resnick, M. J. et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 368, 436–445 (2013).
Donovan, J. L. et al. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 1425–1437 (2016).
Wilt, T. J., Andriole, G. L. & Brawer, M. K. Prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 1302–1303 (2017).
Cooperberg, M. R. & Carroll, P. R. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990–2013. JAMA 314, 80–82 (2015).
Barocas, D. A. et al. What percentage of patients with newly diagnosed carcinoma of the prostate are candidates for surveillance? An analysis of the CaPSURE database. J. Urol. 180, 1330–1334; discussion 1334–1335 (2008).
Davies, L. & Welch, H. G. Current thyroid cancer trends in the United States. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 140, 317–322 (2014).
Sun, F. et al. Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Update of a 2008 Systematic Review (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, 2014).
Hamdy, F. C. et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 1415–1424 (2016).
Wilt, T. J. et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 203–213 (2012).
Wilt, T. J. Management of low risk and low PSA prostate cancer: long term results from the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial. Recent Results Cancer Res. 202, 149–169 (2014).
Wilt, T. J. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial:VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monographs 2012, 184–190 (2012).
Ito, Y. et al. Patient age is significantly related to the progression of papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid under observation. Thyroid 24, 27–34 (2014).
Miyauchi, A. Clinical trials of active surveillance of papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid. World J. Surg. 40, 516–522 (2016).
Sugitani, I. & Fujimoto, Y. Management of low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma: unique conventional policy in Japan and our efforts to improve the level of evidence. Surg. Today 40, 199–215 (2010).
Sugitani, I. et al. Three distinctly different kinds of papillary thyroid microcarcinoma should be recognized: our treatment strategies and outcomes. World J. Surg. 34, 1222–1231 (2010).
Bruinsma, S. M. et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a narrative review of clinical guidelines. Nat. Rev. Urol. 13, 151–167 (2016).
Loeb, S. et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur. Urol. 67, 619–626 (2015).
National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Facts: prostate cancer. SEER https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html (2018).
Fenton, J. J. et al. Prostate-Specific Antigen–Based Screening for Prostate Cancer: a Systematic Evidence Review for the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, 2018).
Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration. The global burden of cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol. 1, 505–527 (2015).
Haas, G. P., Delongchamps, N., Brawley, O. W., Wang, C. Y. & de la Roza, G. The worldwide epidemiology of prostate cancer: perspectives from autopsy studies. Can. J. Urol. 15, 3866–3871 (2008).
Meyer, M. S. et al. Homogeneous prostate cancer mortality in the Nordic countries over four decades. Eur. Urol. 58, 427–432 (2010).
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Xu, J. & Ward, E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J. Clin. 60, 277–300 (2010).
Moyer, V. A. & US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: U. S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 157, 120–134 (2012).
Fleshner, K., Carlsson, S. V. & Roobol, M. J. The effect of the USPSTF PSA screening recommendation on prostate cancer incidence patterns in the USA. Nat. Rev. Urol. 14, 26 (2016).
American Cancer Society. Prostate cancer prevention and early detection. cancer.org https://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostate-cancer/early-detection/acs-recommendations.html (2016).
Basch, E. et al. Screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen testing: American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 3020–3025 (2012).
Carter, H. B. et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA Guideline. J. Urol. 190, 419–426 (2013).
Qaseem, A. et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a guidance statement from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann. Intern. Med. 158, 761–769 (2013).
Carroll, P. R. et al. NCCN guidelines insights: prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2016. J. Natl Compr. Canc. Netw. 14, 509–519 (2016).
Horwich, A. et al. Prostate cancer: ESMO consensus conference guidelines 2012. Ann. Oncol. 24, 1141–1162 (2013).
Heidenreich, A. et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent — update 2013. Eur. Urol. 65, 124–137 (2014).
Pashayan, N. et al. Mean sojourn time, overdiagnosis, and reduction in advanced stage prostate cancer due to screening with PSA: implications of sojourn time on screening. Br. J. Cancer 100, 1198–1204 (2009).
Fouad, M. N. et al. Comorbidity independently predicted death in older prostate cancer patients, more of whom died with than from their disease. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 57, 721–729 (2004).
Loeb, S. et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 65, 1046–1055 (2014).
Etzioni, R., Gulati, R., Mallinger, L. & Mandelblatt, J. Influence of study features and methods on overdiagnosis estimates in breast and prostate cancer screening. Ann. Intern. Med. 158, 831–838 (2013).
de Gelder, R. et al. Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening. Epidemiol. Rev. 33, 111–121 (2011).
Aizer, A. A. et al. Cost implications and complications of overtreatment of low-risk prostate cancer in the United States. J. Natl Compr. Canc. Netw. 13, 61–68 (2015).
Heijnsdijk, E. A. et al. Quality-of-life effects of prostate-specific antigen screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 595–605 (2012).
Chen, R. C. et al. Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 2182–2190 (2016).
Sanda, M. G. et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. ProstateCancerReports http://www.prostatecancerreports.org/fulltext/2017/Sanda_MG170000.pdf (2017).
Bokhorst, L. P. 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. 70, 954–960 (2016).
Bul, M. et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur. Urol. 63, 597–603 (2013).
Tosoian, J. J. et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 3379–3385 (2015).
Tosoian, J. J. et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 2185–2190 (2011).
Klotz, L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom? J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 8165–8169 (2005).
Klotz, L. et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 272–277 (2015).
Klotz, L. et al. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 126–131 (2010).
Whitson, J. M. et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J. Urol. 185, 1656–1660 (2011).
Welty, C. J. et al. Extended followup and risk factors for disease reclassification in a large active surveillance cohort for localized prostate cancer. J. Urol. 193, 807–811 (2015).
Cooperberg, M. R., Broering, J. M. & Carroll, P. R. Risk assessment for prostate cancer metastasis and mortality at the time of diagnosis. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 101, 878–887 (2009).
Soloway, M. S. et al. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur. Urol. 58, 831–835 (2010).
Adamy, A. et al. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J. Urol. 185, 477–482 (2011).
Davis, J. W. et al. Disease reclassification risk with stringent criteria and frequent monitoring in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance. BJU Int. 118, 68–76 (2016).
Kakehi, Y. et al. Prospective evaluation of selection criteria for active surveillance in Japanese patients with stage T1cN0M0 prostate cancer. Jpn J. Clin. Oncol. 38, 122–128 (2008).
Lin, D. W. et al. Urinary TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 in an active surveillance cohort: results from a baseline analysis in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study. Clin. Cancer Res. 19, 2442–2450 (2013).
Newcomb, L. F. et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in the prospective, multi-institutional Canary PASS cohort. J. Urol. 195, 313–320 (2016).
van den Bergh, R. C. et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur. Urol. 55, 1–8 (2009).
Schroder, F. H. et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 384, 2027–2035 (2014).
Godtman, R. A. et al. Long-term results of active surveillance in the Goteborg randomized, population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur. Urol. 70, 760–766 (2016).
Loeb, S. et al. Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 67, 233–238 (2015).
Selvadurai, E. D. et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 64, 981–987 (2013).
Tosoian, J. J., Carter, H. B., Lepor, A. & Loeb, S. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice. Nat. Rev. Urol. 13, 205–215 (2016).
Kinsella, N. et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices. Transl Androl. Urol. 7, 83–97 (2018).
Bruinsma, S. M. et al. The Movember Foundation’s GAP3 cohort: a profile of the largest global prostate cancer active surveillance database to date. BJU Int. 121, 737–744 (2018).
Inoue, L. Y. T. et al. Comparative analysis of biopsy upgrading in four prostate cancer active surveillance cohorts. Ann. Intern. Med. 168, 1–9 (2017).
Gleason, D. F. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother. Rep. 50, 125–128 (1966).
Gleason, D. F. & Mellinger, G. T. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J. Urol. 111, 58–64 (1974).
Mellinger, G. T. Prognosis of prostatic carcinoma. Recent Results Cancer Res. 60, 61–72 (1977).
Gleason, D. F. & Mellinger, G. T., Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J. Urol. 167, 953–958; discussion 959 (2002).
Montironi, R. et al. Original Gleason system versus 2005 ISUP modified Gleason system: the importance of indicating which system is used in the patient’s pathology and clinical reports. Eur. Urol. 58, 369–373 (2010).
Epstein, J. I., Allsbrook, W. C. Jr., Amin, M. B. & Egevad, L. L., ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 29, 1228–1242 (2005).
Epstein, J. I. et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 40, 244–252 (2016).
Epstein, J. I. et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur. Urol. 69, 428–435 (2016).
Humphrey, P. A., Moch, H., Cubilla, A. L., Ulbright, T. M. & Reuter, V. E. The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs — Part B: prostate and bladder tumours. Eur. Urol. 70, 106–119 (2016).
Nelson, W. G., De Marzo, A. M. & Isaacs, W. B. Prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 366–381 (2003).
Pichon, A. et al. Preoperative low serum testosterone is associated with high-grade prostate cancer and an increased Gleason score upgrading. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 18, 382–387 (2015).
Schatzl, G. et al. Association of polymorphisms within androgen receptor, 5α-reductase, and PSA genes with prostate volume, clinical parameters, and endocrine status in elderly men. Prostate 52, 130–138 (2002).
Chodak, G. W. et al. Nuclear localization of androgen receptor in heterogeneous samples of normal, hyperplastic and neoplastic human prostate. J. Urol. 147, 798–803 (1992).
Lee, D. K. & Chang, C. Endocrine mechanisms of disease: expression and degradation of androgen receptor: mechanism and clinical implication. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 88, 4043–4054 (2003).
Takeda, H. et al. Androgen receptor content of prostate carcinoma cells estimated by immunohistochemistry is related to prognosis of patients with stage D2 prostate carcinoma. Cancer 77, 934–940 (1996).
Khera, M., Crawford, D., Morales, A., Salonia, A. & Morgentaler, A. A new era of testosterone and prostate cancer: from physiology to clinical implications. Eur. Urol. 65, 115–123 (2014).
Weischenfeldt, J. et al. Integrative genomic analyses reveal an androgen-driven somatic alteration landscape in early-onset prostate cancer. Cancer Cell 23, 159–170 (2013).
Demichelis, F., Garraway, L. A. & Rubin, M. A. Molecular archeology: unearthing androgen-induced structural rearrangements in prostate cancer genomes. Cancer Cell 23, 133–135 (2013).
Sowalsky, A. G., Ye, H., Bubley, G. J. & Balk, S. P. Clonal progression of prostate cancers from Gleason grade 3 to grade 4. Cancer Res. 73, 1050–1055 (2013).
Pritchard, C. C. et al. Inherited DNA-repair gene mutations in men with metastatic prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 443–453 (2016).
Sanchez, D. et al. Androgen receptor mutations are associated with Gleason score in localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 98, 1320–1325 (2006).
Gallagher, D. J. et al. Germline BRCA mutations denote a clinicopathologic subset of prostate cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 2115–2121 (2010).
Boutros, P. C. et al. Spatial genomic heterogeneity within localized, multifocal prostate cancer. Nat. Genet. 47, 736–745 (2015).
Agoulnik, I. U. et al. Role of SRC-1 in the promotion of prostate cancer cell growth and tumor progression. Cancer Res. 65, 7959–7967 (2005).
Gundem, G. et al. The evolutionary history of lethal metastatic prostate cancer. Nature 520, 353–357 (2015).
Kumar, A. et al. Substantial interindividual and limited intraindividual genomic diversity among tumors from men with metastatic prostate cancer. Nat. Med. 22, 369–378 (2016).
Parton, R. G. & del Pozo, M. A. Caveolae as plasma membrane sensors, protectors and organizers. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 14, 98–112 (2013).
Yang, G., Truong, L. D., Wheeler, T. M. & Thompson, T. C. Caveolin-1 expression in clinically confined human prostate cancer: a novel prognostic marker. Cancer Res. 59, 5719–5723 (1999).
Tahir, S. A. et al. Development of an immunoassay for serum caveolin-1: a novel biomarker for prostate cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 9, 3653–3659 (2003).
Gumulec, J. et al. Caveolin-1 as a potential high-risk prostate cancer biomarker. Oncol. Rep. 27, 831–841 (2012).
Tahir, S. A. et al. Preoperative serum caveolin-1 as a prognostic marker for recurrence in a radical prostatectomy cohort. Clin. Cancer Res. 12, 4872–4875 (2006).
Basourakos, S. P. et al. Baseline and longitudinal plasma caveolin-1 level as a biomarker in active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer. BJU Int. 121, 69–76 (2018).
Yang, G. et al. Caveolin-1 upregulation contributes to c-Myc-induced high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and prostate cancer. Mol. Cancer Res. 10, 218–229 (2012).
Kretschmer, A. & Tilki, D. Biomarkers in prostate cancer — current clinical utility and future perspectives. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 120, 180–193 (2017).
Lin, J. S., Bowles, E. J. A., Williams, S. B. & Morrison, C. C. Screening for thyroid cancer updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 317, 1888–1903 (2017).
Jemal, A. et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J. Clin. 61, 69–90 (2011).
US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for thyroid cancer: U. S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 317, 1882–1887 (2017).
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D. & Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J. Clin. 65, 5–29 (2015).
La Vecchia, C. et al. Author’s reply to thyroid cancer: an epidemic of disease or an epidemic of diagnosis? Int. J. Cancer 136, 2740 (2015).
Hughes, D. T., Haymart, M. R., Miller, B. S., Gauger, P. G. & Doherty, G. M. The most commonly occurring papillary thyroid cancer in the United States is now a microcarcinoma in a patient older than 45 years. Thyroid 21, 231–236 (2011).
Davies, L. & Welch, H. G. Increasing incidence of thyroid cancer in the United States, 1973–2002. JAMA 295, 2164–2167 (2006).
Horn-Ross, P. L. et al. Continued rapid increase in thyroid cancer incidence in California: trends by patient, tumor, and neighborhood characteristics. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 23, 1067–1079 (2014).
Malandrino, P. et al. Papillary thyroid microcarcinomas: a comparative study of the characteristics and risk factors at presentation in two cancer registries. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 98, 1427–1434 (2013).
American Cancer Society. Can thyroid cancer be found early? cancer.org https://www.cancer.org/cancer/thyroid-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/detection.html (2016).
Haugen, B. R. et al. 2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: the American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid 26, 1–133 (2016).
Gharib, H. et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, American College of Endocrinology, and Associazione Medici Endocrinologi medical guidelines for clinical practice for the diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules — 2016 update. Endocr. Pract. 22, 622–639 (2016).
Ridley, J., Ischayek, A., Dubey, V. & Iglar, K. Adult health checkup: update on the Preventive Care Checklist Form©. Can. Fam. Physician 62, 307–313 (2016).
American Academy of Family Physicians. Clinical preventive service recommendation: thyroid cancer. AAFP https://www.aafp.org/patient-care/clinical-recommendations/all/thyroid-cancer.html (2017).
Rad, M. P., Zakavi, S. R., Layegh, P., Khooei, A. & Bahadori, A. Incidental thyroid abnormalities on carotid color Doppler ultrasound: frequency and clinical significance. J. Med. Ultrasound 23, 25–28 (2015).
Nguyen, X. V. et al. Incidental thyroid nodules on CT: evaluation of 2 risk-categorization methods for work-up of nodules. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 34, 1812–1817 (2013).
Soelberg, K. K., Bonnema, S. J., Brix, T. H. & Hegedus, L. Risk of malignancy in thyroid incidentalomas detected by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography: a systematic review. Thyroid 22, 918–925 (2012).
Hoang, J. K. et al. Managing incidental thyroid nodules detected on imaging: white paper of the ACR Incidental Thyroid Findings Committee. J. Am. Coll. Radiol 12, 143–150 (2015).
Haugen, B. R. et al. American Thyroid Association guidelines on the management of thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer task force review and recommendation on the proposed renaming of encapsulated follicular variant papillary thyroid carcinoma without invasion to noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features. Thyroid 27, 481–483 (2017).
Durante, C. et al. The natural history of benign thyroid nodules. JAMA 313, 926–935 (2015).
Takebe, K., Date, M. & Yamamoto, Y. Mass screening for thyroid cancer with ultrasonography. Karkinos 7, 309–317 (1994).
Ahn, H. S. et al. Thyroid cancer screening in South Korea increases detection of papillary cancers with no impact on other subtypes or thyroid cancer mortality. Thyroid 26, 1535–1540 (2016).
Lee, Y. S., Lim, H., Chang, H. S. & Park, C. S. Papillary thyroid microcarcinomas are different from latent papillary thyroid carcinomas at autopsy. J. Kor. Med. Sci. 29, 676–679 (2014).
Flynn, M. B., Lyons, K. J., Tarter, J. W. & Ragsdale, T. L. Local complications after surgical resection for thyroid carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. 168, 404–407 (1994).
Hundahl, S. A. et al. Initial results from a prospective cohort study of 5583 cases of thyroid carcinoma treated in the United States during 1996. U. S. and German Thyroid Cancer Study Group. An American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Patient Care Evaluation study. Cancer 89, 202–217 (2000).
McMullen, C., Rocke, D. & Freeman, J. Complications of bilateral neck dissection in thyroid cancer from a single high-volume center. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 143, 376–381 (2017).
Bergenfelz, A. et al. Complications to thyroid surgery: results as reported in a database from a multicenter audit comprising 3,660 patients. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 393, 667–673 (2008).
Ito, Y. & Miyauchi, A. A therapeutic strategy for incidentally detected papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid. Nat. Clin. Pract. Endocrinol. Metab. 3, 240–248 (2007).
Miyauchi, A. et al. Estimation of the lifetime probability of disease progression of papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid during active surveillance. Surgery 163, 48–52 (2018).
Agrawal, N. et al. Integrated genomic characterization of papillary thyroid carcinoma. Cell 159, 676–690 (2014).
Haugen, B. R. 2015 American Thyroid Association management guidelines for adult patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer: what is new and what has changed? Cancer 123, 372–381 (2017).
Yabuta, T. et al. TERT promoter mutations were not found in papillary thyroid microcarcinomas that showed disease progression on active surveillance. Thyroid 27, 1206–1207 (2017).
National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Facts: thyroid cancer. SEER https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/thyro.html (2018).
Lao, C. et al. The cost-effectiveness of active surveillance compared to watchful waiting and radical prostatectomy for low risk localised prostate cancer. BMC Cancer 17, 529 (2017).
Becerra, V. et al. Economic evaluation of treatments for patients with localized prostate cancer in Europe: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 16, 541 (2016).
Brandes, A. et al. Cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy and active surveillance for the treatment of localized prostate cancer - a claims data analysis. Value Health 17, A636–A637 (2014).
Lang, B. H. & Wong, C. K. A cost-effectiveness comparison between early surgery and non-surgical approach for incidental papillary thyroid microcarcinoma. Eur. J. Endocrinol. 173, 367–375 (2015).
Venkatesh, S. et al. Cost-effectiveness of active surveillance versus hemithyroidectomy for micropapillary thyroid cancer. Surgery 161, 116–126 (2017).
Acknowledgements
The work from the authors is supported in part by a Cancer Center Support Grant (CA16672) from the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
L.M.L., S.P.B., M.D.W. and J.K. researched data for this manuscript, all authors made a substantial contribution to discussions of content, L.M.L., S.P.B. and J.K. wrote the manuscript and all authors reviewed and/or edited the manuscript before submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
At the time of this work, J.K. was a Professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. She is now a full-time employee of Merck. L.M.L, S.P.B, M.D.W, P.T., J.R.G. and T.C.T declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Related links
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lowenstein, L.M., Basourakos, S.P., Williams, M.D. et al. Active surveillance for prostate and thyroid cancers: evolution in clinical paradigms and lessons learned. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 16, 168–184 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-018-0116-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-018-0116-x
This article is cited by
-
High expression of IL4I1 is correlated with poor prognosis and immune infiltration in thyroid cancer
BMC Endocrine Disorders (2023)
-
Conservative management of low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma: a review of the active surveillance experience
Thyroid Research (2023)
-
No significant difference in intermediate key outcomes in men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed by active surveillance
Scientific Reports (2022)
-
Overdiagnosis in urologic cancer
World Journal of Urology (2022)
-
Cancer overdiagnosis: a biological challenge and clinical dilemma
Nature Reviews Cancer (2019)