Final outcomes of patients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance but treated surgically

BJU International

Volumn 104, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 1501-1504

  Louie Johnsun, Mark ^a   Neill, Mischel ^a   Treurnicht, Karien ^a   Jarmulowicz, Michael ^a   Eden, Christopher ^a  

^a ROYAL SURREY COUNTY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER INVASION; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER RISK; CANCER STAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; PROTEIN BLOOD LEVEL; SEMINAL VESICLE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED KINGDOM;

EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; SEMINAL VESICLES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 72349088002     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08597.x     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Klotz L. Active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer: what are the results, and how safe is it? Semin Radiat Oncol 2008 18 : 2 6
2. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Williams S, Ayyathurai R, Kava B, Manoharan M. Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int 2008 101 : 165 169
3. Graham J, Baker M, Macbeth F, Titshall V, Guideline Development Group. Diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 2008 336 : 610 612
4. BMJ. BAUS Comments on Diagnosis and Treatment of Prostate Cancer: Summary of NICE Guidance. Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/336/7644/610. Accessed March 2009
5. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998 280 : 969 974 (Pubitemid 28445094)
6. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994 271 : 368 374
7. King CR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 2000 90 : 305 311
8. Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway MS, Fair WR. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol 1997 157 : 559 562
9. Muntener M, Epstein JI, Hernandez DJ et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008 53 : 767 776
10. Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L, Sparen P, Norlen BJ, Busch C. The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology 1997 50 : 562 566
11. Presti JC Jr., O'Dowd GJ, Miller MC et al. Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer detection rates and minimize variance in prostate specific antigen and age related cancer rates: results of a community multi-practice study. J Urol 2003 169 : 125 129
12. Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Partin AW. Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer 2004 101 : 2001 2005
13. Augustin H, Hammerer PG, Graefen M et al. Insignificant prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimen: time trends and preoperative prediction. Eur Urol 2003 43 : 455 460
14. Boccon-Gibod LM, Dumonceau O, Toublanc M, Ravery V, Boccon-Gibod LA. Micro-focal prostate cancer: a comparison of biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen features. Eur Urol 2005 48 : 895 899
15. Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM. Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol 2001 166 : 104 110
16. Gardner TA, Lemer ML, Schlegel PN, Waldbaum RS, Vaughan ED Jr, Steckel J. Microfocal prostate cancer: biopsy cancer volume does not predict actual tumour volume. Br J Urol 1998 81 : 839 843
17. Johnstone P, Rossi PJ, Jani AB, Master V. 'Insignificant' prostate cancer on biopsy: pathologic results from subsequent radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2007 10 : 237 241
18. Eden CG, Neill M, Louie-Johnsun M, Chabert C. The first 1,000 cases of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the UK: evidence of multiple learning curves. BJU Int 2009 103 : 1224 1230