Pathological findings following radical prostatectomy in patients who are candidates for active surveillance: Impact of varying PSA levels

Asian Journal of Andrology

Volumn 13, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 838-841

  Kang, Dong Il ^a,b   Jang, Thomas L ^a   Jeong, Jeongyun ^a   Choi, Eun Young ^a   Johnson, Kelly ^a   Lee, Dong Hyeon ^c   Kim, Wun Jae ^d   Kim, Isaac Yi ^a  

^a ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b Inje University   (South Korea)

^c Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

^d Chungbuk National University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

prostate specific antigen; prostatectomy; prostatic neoplasm; risk

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; CANCER GRADING; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER RISK; CANCER STAGING; DISEASE MARKER; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; PROTEIN FUNCTION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 80755127204     PISSN: 1008682X     EISSN: 17457262     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/aja.2011.54     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58: 71-96.
2. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, Joniau S, Matveev VB et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 68-80. (Pubitemid 350166735)
3. Thaxton CS, Loeb S, Roehl KA, Kan D, Catalona WJ. Treatment outcomes of radical prostatectomy in potential candidates for 3 published active surveillance protocols. Urology 2010; 75: 414-8.
4. Suardi N, Capitanio U, Chun FK, Graefen M, Perrotte P et al. Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of pathologic features. Cancer 2008; 113: 2068-72.
5. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Wheeler TM, Maru N, Scardino PT et al. Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J Urol 2003; 170: 1792-7. (Pubitemid 37254930)
6. Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Stauf F et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008; 112: 2664-70. (Pubitemid 351969209)
7. Heron M, Hoyert DL, Murphy SL, Xu J, Kochanek KD et al. Deaths: final data for 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009; 57: 1-134.
8. McGregor M, Hanley JA, Boivin JF, McLean RG. Screening for prostate cancer: estimating the magnitude of overdetection. CMAJ 1998; 159: 1368-72. (Pubitemid 29002427)
9. Harnden P, Naylor B, Shelley MD, Clements H, Coles B et al. 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 2008; 112: 971-81. (Pubitemid 351304580)
10. Potdevin L, Ercolani M, Jeong J, Kim IY. Functional and oncologic outcomes comparing interfascial and intrafascial nerve sparing in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. J Endourol 2009; 23: 1479-84.
11. Jeong J, Choi EY, Kim IY. Clavien classification of complications after the initial series of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: the Cancer Institute of New Jersey/Robert Wood Johnson Medical School experience. J Endourol 2010; 24: 1457-61.
12. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, Sinnott JA, Finn S et al. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 1 4 5 4 1 3? J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 3459-64.
13. Chan TY, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Epsein JI. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 314 versus Gleason score 413 tumor at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2000; 56: 823-7.
14. Louie-Johnsun M, Neill M, Treurnicht K, Jarmulowicz M, Eden C. Final outcomes of patients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance but treated surgically. BJU Int 2009; 104: 1501-4.
15. Ploussard G, Salomon L, Xylinas E, Allory Y, Vordos D et al. 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 2010; 183: 539-44.
16. Richstone L, Bianco FJ, Shah HH, Kattan MW, Eastham JA et al. Radical prostatectomy in men aged. or 570 years: effect of age on upgrading, upstaging, and the accuracy of a preoperative nomogram. BJU Int 2008; 101: 541-6. (Pubitemid 351199287)
17. Conti SL, Dall'era M, Fradet V, Cowan JE, Simko J et al. Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol 2009; 181: 1628-33.
18. DAmico AV, Coleman CN. Role of interstitial radiotherapy in the management of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer: the jury is still out. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 304-15.
19. Ross AE, Loeb S, Landis P, Partin AW, Epstein JI et al. Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 2810-6.