The importance of tumor palpability and transrectal ultrasonographic appearance in the contemporary clinical staging of prostate cancer

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 171-176

  Eisenberg, Michael L ^a   Cowan, Janet E ^a   Davies, Benjamin J ^a   Carroll, Peter R ^a   Shinohara, Katsuto ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital rectal examination; Neoplasm staging; Prostatic neoplasms; Ultrasonography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL FEATURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

AGED; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR BURDEN; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 79952039080     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.01.005     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Jemal A., Siegel R., Ward E., et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008, 58:71-96.
2. Kattan M.W., Stapleton A.M., Wheeler T.M., et al. Evaluation of a nomogram used to predict the pathologic stage of clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1997, 79:528-537.
3. Partin A.W., Kattan M.W., Subong E.N., et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update JAMA 1997, 277:1445-1451.
4. D'Amico A.V., Whittington R., Malkowicz S.B., 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.
5. Cooperberg M.R., Pasta D.J., Elkin E.P., et al. The University of California, San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score: A straightforward and reliable preoperative predictor of disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005, 173:1938-1942.
6. Thompson I.M., Ernst J.J., Gangai M.P., et al. Adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Results of routine urological screening. J Urol 1984, 132:690-692.
7. Smith J.A., Scardino P.T., Resnick M.I., et al. Transrectal ultrasound versus digital rectal examination for the staging of carcinoma of the prostate: Results of a prospective, multi-institutional trial. J Urol 1997, 157:902-906.
8. Augustin H., Graefen M., Palisaar J., et al. Prognostic significance of visible lesions on transrectal ultrasound in impalpable prostate cancers: Implications for staging. J Clin Oncol 2003, 21:2860-2868.
9. Ohori M., Kattan M.W., Utsunomiya T., et al. Do impalpable stage T1c prostate cancers visible on ultrasound differ from those not visible?. J Urol 2003, 169:964-968.
10. Ferguson J.K., Bostwick D.G., Suman V., et al. Prostate-specific antigen detected prostate cancer: Pathological characteristics of ultrasound visible vs. ultrasound invisible tumors. Eur Urol 1995, 27:8-12.
11. Cooperberg M.R., Moul J.W., Carroll P.R. The changing face of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23:8146-8151.
12. Billis A., Magna L.A., Watanabe I.C., et al. Are prostate carcinoma clinical stages T1c and T2 similar?. Int Braz J Urol 2006, 32:165-171.
13. Freedland S.J., Amling C.L., Dorey F., et al. Race as an outcome predictor after radical prostatectomy: Results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database. Urology 2002, 60:670-674.
14. Shinohara K. Transrectal Ultrasonography. Current Genitourinary Cancer Surgery 1997, 770-786. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore. E.D. Crawford, S. Das (Eds.).
15. Presti J.C., Hricak H., Narayan P.A., et al. Local staging of prostatic carcinoma: Comparison of transrectal sonography and endorectal MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996, 166:103-108.
16. Cookson M.S., Aus G., Burnett A.L., et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: The American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol 2007, 177:540-545.
17. Tiguert R., Gheiler E.L., Grignon D.J., et al. Patients with abnormal ultrasound of the prostate but normal digital rectal examination should be classified as having clinical stage T2 tumors. J Urol 2000, 163:1486-1490.
18. Tzai T.S., Lin J.S., Yeh Y.C., et al. The role of transrectal ultrasonography on the palpable and impalpable abnormal prostate. Eur Urol 1995, 27:142-145.
19. Simak R., Eisenmenger M., Hainz A., et al. Is transrectal ultrasonography needed to rule out prostatic cancer with normal findings at digital rectal examination and normal serum prostate-specific antigen?. Eur Urol 1993, 24:474-478.
20. Shipley W.U., Thames H.D., Sandler H.M., et al. Radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: A multi-institutional pooled analysis. JAMA 1999, 281:1598-1604.
21. Ghavamian R., Blute M.L., Bergstralh E.J., et al. Comparison of clinically nonpalpable prostate-specific antigen-detected (cT1c) vs. palpable (cT2) prostate cancers in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 1999, 54:105-110.
22. Freedland S.J., Presti J.C., Terris M.K., et al. Improved clinical staging system combining biopsy laterality and TNM stage for men with T1c and T2 prostate cancer: Results from the SEARCH database. J Urol 2003, 169:2129-2135.
23. D'Amico A.V., Chen M.H., Renshaw A.A., et al. Androgen suppression and radiation vs. radiation alone for prostate cancer: A randomized trial. JAMA 2008, 299:289-295.
24. Cooperberg M.R., Lubeck D.P., Meng M.V., et al. The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: Trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J Clin Oncol 2004, 22:2141-2149.
25. Makarov D.V., Trock B.J., Humphreys E.B., et al. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology 2007, 69:1095-1101.
26. Thompson I.M., Tangen C.M., Goodman P.J., et al. Finasteride improves the sensitivity of digital rectal examination for prostate cancer detection. J Urol 2007, 177:1749-1752.
27. Lucia M.S., Epstein J.I., Goodman P.J., et al. Finasteride and high-grade prostate cancer in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007, 99:1375-1383.
28. Shinohara K., Wheeler T.M., Scardino P.T. The appearance of prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasonography: Correlation of imaging and pathological examinations. J Urol 1989, 142:76-82.
29. Ohori M., Egawa S., Shinohara K., et al. Detection of microscopic extracapsular extension prior to radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Br J Urol 1994, 74:72-79.
30. Dall'Era M.A., Konety B.R., Cowan J.E., et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008, 112:2664-2670.
31. Greene K.L., Cowan J.E., Cooperberg M.R., et al. Who is the average patient presenting with prostate cancer?. Urology 2005, 66:76-82.
32. Rampersaud E.N., Sun L., Moul J.W., et al. Percent tumor involvement and risk of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2008, 180:571-576. Discussion 76.
33. Rifkin M.D., Zerhouni E.A., Gatsonis C.A., et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer. Results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial. N Engl J Med 1990, 323:621-626.
34. Rinnab L., Blumstein N.M., Mottaghy F.M., et al. 11C-choline positron-emission tomography/computed tomography and transrectal ultrasonography for staging localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007, 99:1421-1426.