Pathological findings at radical prostatectomy in Japanese prospective active surveillance cohort

Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 40, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 973-979

  Sugimoto, Mikio ^a   Shiraishi, Taizo ^b   Tsunemori, Hiroyuki ^a   Demura, Takayoshi ^c   Saito, Yuko ^d   Kamoto, Toshiyuki ^e   Kakehi, Yoshiyuki ^a  

^a KAGAWA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b MIE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^c Sapporo Kosei General Hospital   (Japan)

^d SHIZUOKA CANCER CENTER   (Japan)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MIYAZAKI   (Japan)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Pathological findings; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERINEURIUM; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY; HUMANS; JAPAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 77957722399     PISSN: 03682811     EISSN: 14653621     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyq082     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Ito K. Prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer: evidence, controversies and future perspectives. Int J Urol 2009;16:458-64.
2. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-Year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc 2005;293:2095-101.
3. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 2007;178:S14-9.
4. Barocas DA, Cowan JE, Smith JA, Jr, Carroll PR, and CaPSURE Investigators. What percentage of patients with newly diagnosed carcinoma of the prostate are candidates for surveillance? An analysis of the CaPSURE database. J Urol 2008;180: 1330-4;discussion 1334-5.
5. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, Haggman M, Andersson SO, Bratell S, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1977-84.
6. Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, Eggener SE, Eastham JA, Guillonneau BD. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008;180:1964-7; discussion 1967-8.
7. Allan RW, Sanderson H, Epstein JI. Correlation of minute (0.5 MM or less) focus of prostate adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy with radical prostatectomy specimen: role of prostate specific antigen density. J Urol 2003;170:370-2.
8. 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;48:895-9.
9. Isariyawongse BK, Sun L, Banez LL, Robertson C, Polascik TJ, Maloney K, et al. Significant discrepancies between diagnostic and pathologic Gleason sums in prostate cancer: the predictive role of age and prostate-specific antigen. Urology 2008;72:882-6.
10. Osunkoya AO, Carter HB, Epstein JI. A clinicopathologic study of preoperative and postoperative findings with minute Gleason 3 + 3 = 6 cancer at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2008;72:638-40.
11. Hermanek P, Hutter RVP, Sobin LH, Spiessi B, Wagner G. TNM Atlas, 4th edn. Berlin: Springer, 1997;272-80.
12. Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, van der Kwast TH, de Koning HJ, Schroder FH. Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol 2007;177:107-12; discussion 112.
13. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Meng MV, Mehta SS, Carroll PR. The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2141-9.
14. Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: trials and tribulations. World J Urol 2008;26:437-42.
15. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: a randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy versus expectant management for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1994;152:1910-4.
16. Klotz L. Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention for favorable risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2006;24:46-50.
17. Anonymous Phase III Randomized Study of Active Surveillance Versus Radical Treatment in Patients with Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer. http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/CAN-NCICCTG-PR11.
18. Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D, Peters T, Oliver S, Brindle L, et al. Prostate testing for cancer and treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:1-88.
19. Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Shiraishi T, Ogawa O, Suzukamo Y, Fukuhara S, et al. Prospective evaluation of selection criteria for active surveillance in Japanese patients with stage T1cN0M0 prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2008;38:122-8.
20. Conti SL, Dall'era M, Fradet V, Cowan JE, Simko J, Carroll PR. Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol 2009;181:1628-33; discussion 1633-4.
21. Stephenson AJ, Jones JS, Hernandez AV, Ciezki JP, Gong MC, Klein EA. Analysis of T1c prostate cancers treated at very low prostate-specific antigen levels. Eur Urol 2009;53:610-6.
22. Chun FK, Suardi N, Capitanio U, Jeldres C, Ahyai S, Graefen M, et al. Assessment of pathological prostate cancer characteristics in men with favorable biopsy features on predominantly sextant biopsy. Eur Urol 2009;55:617-28.
23. Loeb S, Roehl KA, Thaxton CS, Catalona WJ. Combined prostate-specific antigen density and biopsy features to predict 'clinically insignificant' prostate cancer. Urology 2008;72:143-7.
24. Patel MI, DeConcini DT, Lopez-Corona E, Ohori M, Wheeler T, Scardino PT. An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy. J Urol 2004;171:1520-4.
25. Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, Perrotte P, Jeldres C, Briganti A, et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2009;73:1087-91.
26. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schroder FH, Bangma CH. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2007;52:1560-3.
27. Khatami A, Aus G, Damber JE, Lilja H, Lodding P, Hugosson J. PSA doubling time predicts the outcome after active surveillance in screening-detected prostate cancer: results from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer, Sweden section. Int J Cancer 2007;120:170-4.