The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer

European Urology

Volumn 60, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 291-303

  Ploussard, Guillaume ^a,b   Epstein, Jonathan I ^c   Montironi, Rodolfo ^d,e   Carroll, Peter R ^f   Wirth, Manfred ^g   Grimm, Marc Oliver ^h   Bjartell, Anders S ⁱ   Montorsi, Francesco ^j   Freedland, Stephen J ^k   Erbersdobler, Andreas ^l   Van Der Kwast, Theodorus H ^m  

^a SAINT LOUIS HOSPITAL   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS EST CRÉTEIL   (France)

^c DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITÀ POLITECNICA DELLE MARCHE   (Italy)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL CARL GUSTAV CARUS   (Germany)

^h JENA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Germany)

ⁱ LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^j VITA SALUTE SAN RAFFAELE UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^k DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^l UNIVERSITY OF ROSTOCK   (Germany)

^m UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Indolent; Insignificant; Prediction; Prostate cancer; Significant; Tumour volume

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE CANCER ANTIGEN 3; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; TUMOR ANTIGEN; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

AUTOPSY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DISEASE COURSE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; REVIEW; TUMOR VOLUME;

BIOPSY; DISEASE PROGRESSION; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MALE; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; NEOPLASM STAGING; NOMOGRAMS; PATIENT SELECTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 79959549565     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: 18737560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.05.006     Document Type: Review

References (97)

1. J.I. Epstein, P.C. Walsh, M. Carmichael, and C.B. Brendler Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer JAMA 271 1994 368 374 (Pubitemid 24037911)
2. K. Trpkov, A. Yilmaz, T.A. Bismar, and R. Montironi 'Insignificant' prostate cancer on prostatectomy and cystoprostatectomy: variation on a theme 'low-volume/low-grade' prostate cancer? BJU Int 106 2010 304 315
3. F. Dong, M.W. Kattan, and E.W. Steyerberg Validation of pre-treatment nomograms for predicting indolent prostate cancer: efficacy in contemporary urological practice J Urol 180 2008 150 154
4. C.H. Bangma, M.J. Roobol, and E.W. Steyerberg Predictive models in diagnosing indolent cancer Cancer 115 2009 3100 3106
5. S. Roemeling, M.J. Roobol, M.W. Kattan, T.H. van der Kwast, E.W. Steyerberg, and F.H. Schröder Nomogram use for the prediction of indolent prostate cancer: impact on screen-detected populations Cancer 110 2007 2218 2221 (Pubitemid 350100743)
6. E.W. Steyerberg, M.J. Roobol, M.W. Kattan, T.H. Van Der Kwast, H.J. De Koning, and F.H. Schroder Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram J Urol 177 2007 107 112 (Pubitemid 44879468)
7. M.W. Kattan, J.A. Eastham, and T.M. Wheeler Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors J Urol 170 2003 1792 1797 (Pubitemid 37254930)
8. J.A. Dugan, D.G. Bostwick, R.P. Myers, J. Qian, E.J. Bergstralh, and J.E. Oesterling The definition and preoperative prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer JAMA 275 1996 288 294 (Pubitemid 26028587)
9. T.A. Stamey, F.S. Freiha, J.E. McNeal, E.A. Redwine, A.S. Whittemore, and H.P. Schmid Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer Cancer 71 Suppl 1993 933 938 (Pubitemid 23049614)
10. J.I. Epstein, D.W. Chan, and L.J. Sokoll Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings J Urol 160 1998 2407 2411 (Pubitemid 29483051)
11. M. Ohori, T.M. Wheeler, J.K. Dunn, T.A. Stamey, and P.T. Scardino The pathological features and prognosis of prostate cancer detectable with current diagnostic tests J Urol 152 1994 1714 1720 (Pubitemid 24322613)
12. M.E. Chen, D. Johnston, A.O. Reyes, C.P. Soto, R.J. Babaian, and P. Troncoso A streamlined three-dimensional volume estimation method accurately classifies prostate tumors by volume Am J Surg Pathol 27 2003 1291 1301 (Pubitemid 37185820)
13. T.A. Stamey, J.E. McNeal, C.M. Yemoto, B.M. Sigal, and I.M. Johnstone Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer JAMA 281 1999 1395 1400 (Pubitemid 29190217)
14. A.A. Renshaw, J.P. Richie, K.R. Loughlin, M. Jiroutek, A. Chung, and A.V. D'Amico Maximum diameter of prostatic carcinoma is a simple, inexpensive, and independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen failure in radical prostatectomy specimens. Validation in a cohort of 434 patients Am J Clin Pathol 111 1999 641 644 (Pubitemid 29200951)
15. G.F. Carvalhal, P.A. Humphrey, P. Thorson, Y. Yan, C.G. Ramos, and W.J. Catalona Visual estimate of the percentage of carcinoma is an independent predictor of prostate carcinoma recurrence after radical prostatectomy Cancer 89 2000 1308 1314
16. M. Noguchi, T.A. Stamey, J.E. McNeal, and R. Nolley Prognostic factors for multifocal prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of significance of secondary cancers J Urol 170 2003 459 463 (Pubitemid 36870224)
17. J.I. Epstein, W.C. Allsbrook Jr., M.B. Amin, L.L. Egevad ISUP Grading Committee The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma Am J Surg Pathol 29 2005 1228 1242 (Pubitemid 41232997)
18. A.N. Vis, S. Roemeling, R. Kranse, F.H. Schröder, and T.H. van der Kwast Should we replace the Gleason score with the amount of high-grade prostate cancer? Eur Urol 51 2007 931 939 (Pubitemid 46281411)
19. L. Cheng, M.O. Koch, and B.E. Juliar The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy J Clin Oncol 23 2005 2911 2917 (Pubitemid 46224109)
20. C.C. Pan, S.R. Potter, A.W. Partin, and J.I. Epstein The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system Am J Surg Pathol 24 2000 563 569 (Pubitemid 30180750)
21. C.R. King, M. Ferrari, and J.D. Brooks Prognostic significance of prostate cancer originating from the transition zone Urol Oncol 27 2009 592 597
22. A. Reissigl, J. Pointner, H. Strasser, O. Ennemoser, H. Klocker, and G. Bartsch Frequency and clinical significance of transition zone cancer in prostate cancer screening Prostate 30 1997 130 135 (Pubitemid 27088121)
23. M.B. Irwin, and J.G. Trapasso Identification of insignificant prostate cancers: analysis of preoperative parameters Urology 44 1994 862 868
24. M.K. Terris, D.J. Haney, I.M. Johnstone, J.E. McNeal, and T.A. Stamey Prediction of prostate cancer volume using prostate-specific antigen levels, transrectal ultrasound, and systematic sextant biopsies Urology 45 1995 75 80
25. M.R. Cupp, D.G. Bostwick, R.P. Myers, and J.E. Oesterling The volume of prostate cancer in the biopsy specimen cannot reliably predict the quantity of cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimen on an individual basis J Urol 153 1995 1543 1548
26. Y. Goto, M. Ohori, A. Arakawa, M.W. Kattan, T.M. Wheeler, and P.T. Scardino Distinguishing clinically important from unimportant prostate cancers before treatment: value of systematic biopsies J Urol 156 1996 1059 1063 (Pubitemid 26269829)
27. A.A. Elgamal, H.P. Van Poppel, W.M. Van de Voorde, J.A. Van Dorpe, R.H. Oyen, and L.V. Baert Impalpable invisible stage T1c prostate cancer: characteristics and clinical relevance in 100 radical prostatectomy specimens - a different view J Urol 157 1997 244 250 (Pubitemid 26414968)
28. H.B. Carter, J. Sauvageot, P.C. Walsh, and J.I. Epstein Prospective evaluation of men with stage T1C adenocarcinoma of the prostate J Urol 157 1997 2206 2209 (Pubitemid 27208672)
29. M. Noguchi, T.A. Stamey, J.E. McNeal, and C.M. Yemoto 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 166 2001 104 110
30. D.J. Grossklaus, C.S. Coffey, S.B. Shappell, G.S. Jack, and M.S. Cookson Prediction of tumour volume and pathological stage in radical prostatectomy specimens is not improved by taking more prostate needle-biopsy cores BJU Int 88 2001 722 726
31. T.Y. Chan, D.Y. Chan, K.L. Stutzman, and J.I. Epstein Does increased needle biopsy sampling of the prostate detect a higher number of potentially insignificant tumors? J Urol 166 2001 2181 2184 (Pubitemid 33065252)
32. D.S. DiMarco, M.L. Blute, and H. Zincke Multivariate models to predict clinically important outcomes at prostatectomy for patients with organ-confined disease and needle biopsy Gleason scores of 6 or less Urol Oncol 21 2003 439 446 (Pubitemid 38542720)
33. H. Augustin, P.G. Hammerer, and M. Graefen Insignificant prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimen: time trends and preoperative prediction Eur Urol 43 2003 455 460 (Pubitemid 36528428)
34. J.W. Anast, G.L. Andriole, T.A. Bismar, Y. Yan, and P.A. Humphrey Relating biopsy and clinical variables to radical prostatectomy findings: can insignificant and advanced prostate cancer be predicted in a screening population? Urology 64 2004 544 550 (Pubitemid 39200755)
35. H. Miyake, I. Sakai, K. Harada, I. Hara, and H. Eto Prediction of potentially insignificant prostate cancer in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically organ-confined disease Int J Urol 12 2005 270 274 (Pubitemid 40646699)
36. A. Ochiai, P. Troncoso, M.E. Chen, J. Lloreta, and R.J. Babaian The relationship between tumor volume and the number of positive cores in men undergoing multisite extended biopsy: implication for expectant management J Urol 174 2005 2164 2168 (Pubitemid 41611765)
37. S. Loeb, C.M. Gonzalez, and K.A. Roehl Pathological characteristics of prostate cancer detected through prostate specific antigen based screening J Urol 175 2006 902 906 (Pubitemid 43200014)
38. A. Shukla-Dave, H. Hricak, and M.W. Kattan The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: an initial analysis BJU Int 99 2007 786 793 (Pubitemid 46439567)
39. H. Nakanishi, X. Wang, and A. Ochiai A nomogram for predicting low-volume/low-grade prostate cancer: a tool in selecting patients for active surveillance Cancer 110 2007 2441 2447 (Pubitemid 350174929)
40. R. Postma, F.H. Schröder, and G.J.L.H. van Leenders Cancer detection and cancer characteristics in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) - section Rotterdam: a comparison of two rounds of screening Eur Urol 52 2007 89 97 (Pubitemid 46803013)
41. I.M. van Oort, D.E. Kok, L.A. Kiemeney, C.A. Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, and J.A. Witjes A single institution experience with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for tumors that on pathology are of small volume or "insignificant." Urol Oncol 27 2009 509 513
42. U. Capitanio, S. Ahyai, and M. Graefen Assessment of biochemical recurrence rate in patients with pathologically confirmed insignificant prostate cancer Urology 72 2008 1208 1211
43. F.K. Chun, A. Haese, and S.A. Ahyai Critical assessment of tools to predict clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in contemporary men Cancer 113 2008 701 709
44. S. Sengupta, M.L. Blute, and S.M. Bagniewski After radical retropubic prostatectomy 'insignificant' prostate cancer has a risk of progression similar to low-risk 'significant' cancer BJU Int 101 2008 170 174 (Pubitemid 350294048)
45. M.C. Lee, F. Dong, A.J. Stephenson, J.S. Jones, C. Magi-Galluzzi, and E.A. Klein The Epstein criteria predict for organ-confined but not insignificant disease and a high likelihood of cure at radical prostatectomy Eur Urol 58 2010 90 95
46. S. Loeb, K.A. Roehl, B.T. Helfand, D. Kan, and W.J. Catalona Can prostate specific antigen velocity thresholds decrease insignificant prostate cancer detection? J Urol 183 2010 112 116
47. C.X. Raventós, A. Orsola, and I. de Torres Preoperative prediction of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: the role of prostate volume and the number of positive cores Urol Int 84 2010 153 158
48. B.T. Helfand, S. Loeb, D. Kan, and W.J. Catalona Number of prostate cancer risk alleles may identify possibly 'insignificant' disease BJU Int 106 2010 1602 1606
49. N.B. Delongchamps, G. de la Roza, R. Jones, M. Jumbelic, and G.P. Haas Saturation biopsies on autopsied prostates for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer BJU Int 103 2009 49 54
50. N.B. Delongchamps, G. de la Roza, and V. Chandan Diagnostic accuracy of extended biopsies for the staging of microfocal prostate cancers in autopsy specimen Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 12 2009 137 142
51. K. Stamatiou, A. Alevizos, D. Perimeni, F. Sofras, and E. Agapitos Frequency of impalpable prostate adenocarcinoma and precancerous conditions in Greek male population: an autopsy study Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 9 2006 45 49 (Pubitemid 43378869)
52. A. Erbersdobler, P. Bardenhagen, and R.P. Henke Numerical chromosomal anomalies in latent adenocarcinomas of the prostate Prostate 38 1999 92 99 (Pubitemid 29052947)
53. B.R. Konety, V.Y. Bird, S. Deorah, and L. Dahmoush Comparison of the incidence of latent prostate cancer detected at autopsy before and after the prostate specific antigen era J Urol 174 2005 1785 1788 (Pubitemid 41546938)
54. N. Breslow, C.W. Chan, and G. Dhom Latent carcinoma of prostate at autopsy in seven areas. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyons, France Int J Cancer 20 1977 680 688
55. P.J. Bastian, L.A. Mangold, J.I. Epstein, and A.W. Partin Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis Cancer 101 2004 2001 2005 (Pubitemid 39425375)
56. C. Jeldres, N. Suardi, and J. Walz Validation of the contemporary Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men Eur Urol 54 2008 1306 1313
57. S.E. Lee, D.S. Kim, and W.K. Lee Application of the Epstein criteria for prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer in Korean men BJU Int 105 2010 1526 1530
58. S. Loeb, K.A. Roehl, C.S. Thaxton, and W.J. Catalona Combined prostate-specific antigen density and biopsy features to predict "clinically insignificant" prostate cancer Urology 72 2008 143 147
59. P. Harnden, B. Naylor, M.D. Shelley, H. Clements, B. Coles, and M.D. Mason The clinical management of patients with a small volume of prostatic cancer on biopsy: what are the risks of progression? A systematic review and meta-analysis Cancer 112 2008 971 981 (Pubitemid 351304580)
60. F.K.-H. Chun, N. Suardi, and U. Capitanio Assessment of pathological prostate cancer characteristics in men with favorable biopsy features on predominantly sextant biopsy Eur Urol 55 2009 617 628
61. G.W. Hull, F. Rabbani, F. Abbas, T.M. Wheeler, M.W. Kattan, and P.T. Scardino Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients J Urol 167 2002 528 534 (Pubitemid 34074521)
62. G. Ploussard, V. Azancot, and N. Nicolaiew The effect of prostate-specific antigen screening during the last decade: development of clinicopathological variables independently of the biopsy core number BJU Int 106 2010 1293 1297
63. J.A. Taylor III, K.J. Gancarczyk, G.V. Fant, and D.G. Mcleod Increasing the number of core samples taken at prostate needle biopsy enhances the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer Urology 60 2002 841 845 (Pubitemid 35300351)
64. M.R. Cooperberg, D.J. Pasta, and E.P. Elkin 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 173 2005 1938 1942 (Pubitemid 40675216)
65. J.I. Epstein, H. Sanderson, H.B. Carter, and D.O. Scharfstein Utility of saturation biopsy to predict insignificant cancer at radical prostatectomy Urology 66 2005 356 360 (Pubitemid 41138097)
66. L.M. Boccon-Gibod, N.B. de Longchamps, M. Toublanc, L.A. Boccon-Gibod, and V. Ravery Prostate saturation biopsy in the reevaluation of microfocal prostate cancer J Urol 176 2006 961 963
67. F.H. Schröder, J. Hugosson, and M.J. Roobol Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study N Engl J Med 360 2009 1320 1328
68. S. Loeb, E.F. Vonesh, E.J. Metter, H.B. Carter, P.H. Gann, and W.J. Catalona What is the true number needed to screen and treat to save a life with prostate-specific antigen testing? J Clin Oncol 29 2011 464 467
69. J. Hugosson, S. Carlsson, and G. Aus Mortality results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial Lancet Oncol 11 2010 725 732
70. A.E. Ross, S. Loeb, and P. Landis Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program J Clin Oncol 28 2010 2810 2816
71. A.S. Duffield, T.K. Lee, H. Miyamoto, H.B. Carter, and J.I. Epstein Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails J Urol 182 2009 2274 2278
72. S.L. Conti, M. Dall'era, V. Fradet, J.E. Cowan, J. Simko, and P.R. Carroll Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer J Urol 181 2009 1628 1633
73. T. Wolters, M.J. Roobol, and P.J. van Leeuwen Should pathologists routinely report prostate tumour volume? The prognostic value of tumour volume in prostate cancer Eur Urol 57 2010 821 829
74. N.M. Kramer, A.L. Hanlon, E.M. Horwitz, W.H. Pinover, and G.H. Hanks Biochemical failure rates in prostate cancer patients predicted to have biologically insignificant tumors treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 53 2002 277 281 (Pubitemid 34522093)
75. H. Nakanishi, J. Groskopf, and H.A. Fritsche PCA3 molecular urine assay correlates with prostate cancer tumor volume: implication in selecting candidates for active surveillance J Urol 179 2008 1804 1809
76. E.J. Whitman, J. Groskopf, and A. Ali PCA3 score before radical prostatectomy predicts extracapsular extension and tumor volume J Urol 180 2008 1975 1978
77. D. Hessels, M.P. van Gils, and O. van Hooij Predictive value of PCA3 in urinary sediments in determining clinico-pathological characteristics of prostate cancer Prostate 70 2010 10 16
78. M. Auprich, F.K.-H. Chun, and J.F. Ward Critical assessment of preoperative urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 on the accuracy of prostate cancer staging Eur Urol 59 2011 96 105
79. G. Ploussard, X. Durand, and E. Xylinas Prostate cancer antigen 3 score accurately predicts tumour volume and might help in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance Eur Urol 59 2011 422 429
80. V. Fradet, J. Kurhanewicz, and J.E. Cowan Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging Radiology 256 2010 176 183
81. Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Durand X, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging does not improve the prediction of misclassification of prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance when the most stringent selection criteria are based on the saturation biopsy scheme. BJU Int. In press. DOI:10.1111/j.1464- 410X.2010.09974.x.
82. H. Kajihara, Y. Hayashida, and R. Murakami Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging in the localization of prostate cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74 2009 399 403
83. N.J. van As, N.M. de Souza, and S.F. Riches A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance Eur Urol 56 2009 981 988
84. M. Umbehr, L.M. Bachmann, and U. Held Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur Urol 55 2009 575 591
85. L. Dickinson, H.U. Ahmed, and C. Allen Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting Eur Urol 59 2011 477 494
86. L. Wang, H. Hricak, M.W. Kattan, H.N. Chen, P.T. Scardino, and K. Kuroiwa Prediction of organ-confined prostate cancer: incremental value of MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms Radiology 238 2006 597 603 (Pubitemid 43134372)
87. T. Wolters, M.J. Roobol, C.H. Bangma, and F.H. Schröder Is prostate-specific antigen velocity selective for clinically significant prostate cancer in screening? European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (Rotterdam) Eur Urol 55 2009 385 393
88. J.M. Whitson, and P.R. Carroll Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: defining the triggers for intervention J Clin Oncol 28 2010 2807 2809
89. B.T. Helfand, S. Loeb, D. Kan, and W.J. Catalona Number of prostate cancer risk alleles may identify possibly 'insignificant' disease BJU Int 106 2010 1602 1606
90. M. Nakano, H. Takahashi, and T. Shiraishi Prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer by detection of allelic imbalance at 6q, 8p and 13q Pathol Int 58 2008 415 420 (Pubitemid 351814373)
91. A.J. Stephenson, M.W. Kattan, and J.A. Eastham Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen era J Clin Oncol 27 2009 4300 4305
92. M.M. Merrill, B.R. Lane, A.M. Reuther, M. Zhou, C. Magi-Galluzzi, and E.A. Klein Tumor volume does not predict for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with surgical Gleason score 6 or less prostate cancer Urology 70 2007 294 298 (Pubitemid 47362252)
93. T. Wolters, M.J. Roobol, and P.J. van Leeuwen A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial J Urol 185 2011 121 125
94. G. Ploussard, L. Salomon, and E. Xylinas Pathological findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance - does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria? J Urol 183 2010 539 544
95. R.K. Berglund, T.A. Masterson, K.C. Vora, S.E. Eggener, J.A. Eastham, and B.D. Guillonneau Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance J Urol 180 2008 1964 1967
96. M.A. Dall'Era, B.R. Konety, and J.E. Cowan Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort Cancer 112 2008 2664 2670 (Pubitemid 351969209)
97. S. Roemeling, M.J. Roobol, and R. Postma Management and survival of screen-detected prostate cancer patients who might have been suitable for active surveillance Eur Urol 50 2006 475 482 (Pubitemid 44189069)