Predictors of unfavourable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance program

European Urology

Volumn 61, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 370-377

  Bul, Meelan ^a   Van Den Bergh, Roderick C N ^a   Rannikko, Antti ^b   Valdagni, Riccardo ^c   Pickles, Tom ^d   Bangma, Chris H ^a   Roobol, Monique J ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b HELSINKI UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^c NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^d BRITISH COLUMBIA CANCER AGENCY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Biopsy; Disease progression; Prostate specific antigen; Prostatic neoplasms; Reclassification; Risk

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; COHORT ANALYSIS; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; DISEASE SEVERITY; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; REPEAT PROCEDURE; TUMOR BIOPSY;

AGED; BIOPSY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK;

EID: 83955162939     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: 18737560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.06.027     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. F.H. Schroder, J. Hugosson, and M.J. Roobol Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study N Engl J Med 360 2009 1320 1328
2. J. Hugosson, S. Carlsson, and G. Aus Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial Lancet Oncol 11 2010 725 732
3. G. Draisma, R. Boer, and S.J. Otto Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst 95 2003 868 878
4. Y. Pardo, F. Guedea, and F. Aguilo Quality-of-life impact of primary treatments for localized prostate cancer in patients without hormonal treatment J Clin Oncol 28 2010 4687 4696
5. S. Carlsson, G. Aus, and S. Bergdahl The excess burden of side-effects from treatment in men allocated to screening for prostate cancer. The Goteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial Eur J Cancer 47 2011 545 553
6. 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
7. L. Klotz, L. Zhang, A. Lam, R. Nam, A. Mamedov, and A. Loblaw Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer J Clin Oncol 28 2010 126 131
8. M. Al Otaibi, P. Ross, and N. Fahmy Role of repeated biopsy of the prostate in predicting disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance Cancer 113 2008 286 292
9. N.J. van As, and C.C. Parker Active surveillance with selective radical treatment for localized prostate cancer Cancer J 13 2007 289 294
10. H.B. Carter, A. Kettermann, and C. Warlick Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience J Urol 178 2007 2359 2364 discussion 2364-5
11. R.C. van den Bergh, H. Vasarainen, and H.G. van der Poel Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre 'Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance' study BJU Int 105 2010 956 962
12. M.S. Soloway, C.T. Soloway, S. Williams, R. Ayyathurai, B. Kava, and M. Manoharan Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience BJU Int 101 2008 165 169
13. 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 discussion 1967-8
14. A.F. Kotb, S. Tanguay, M.A. Luz, W. Kassouf, and A.G. Aprikian Relationship between initial PSA density with future PSA kinetics and repeat biopsies in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 14 2011 53 57
15. R. Venkitaraman, A. Norman, and R. Woode-Amissah Predictors of histological disease progression in untreated, localized prostate cancer J Urol 178 2007 833 837
16. J.M. Whitson, S.P. Porten, and J.F. Hilton The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance J Urol 185 2011 1656 1660
17. I.F. San Francisco, L. Werner, M.M. Regan, M.B. Garnick, G. Bubley, and W.C. DeWolf Risk stratification and validation of prostate specific antigen density as independent predictor of progression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance J Urol 185 2011 471 476
18. K.S. Tseng, P. Landis, J.I. Epstein, B.J. Trock, and H.B. Carter Risk stratification of men choosing surveillance for low risk prostate cancer J Urol 183 2010 1779 1785
19. A. Adamy, D.S. Yee, and K. Matsushita Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer J Urol 185 2011 477 482
20. M.K. Ng, N. Van As, and K. Thomas Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics in untreated, localized prostate cancer: PSA velocity vs PSA doubling time BJU Int 103 2009 872 876
21. 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
22. S. Isharwal, D.V. Makarov, and L.J. Sokoll ProPSA and diagnostic biopsy tissue DNA content combination improves accuracy to predict need for prostate cancer treatment among men enrolled in an active surveillance program Urology 77 2011 763.e1-6
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. A. Briganti, F.K. Chun, and N. Suardi Prostate volume and adverse prostate cancer features: fact not artifact Eur J Cancer 43 2007 2669 2677
28. S.J. Freedland, W.B. Isaacs, and E.A. Platz Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study J Clin Oncol 23 2005 7546 7554
29. J.J. Liu, J.D. Brooks, M. Ferrari, R. Nolley, and J.C. Presti Jr. Small prostate size and high grade disease-biology or artifact? J Urol 185 2011 2108 2111
30. A. Khatami, G. Aus, J.E. Damber, H. Lilja, P. Lodding, and J. Hugosson 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 120 2007 170 174
31. 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