Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: A head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols

European Urology

Volumn 62, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 462-468

  Iremashvili, Viacheslav ^a   Pelaez, Lisét ^a   Manoharan, Murugesan ^a   Jorda, Mercé ^a   Rosenberg, Daniel L ^a   Soloway, Mark S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER SURGERY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

BIOPSY; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM STAGING; PATIENT SELECTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84864495657     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: 18737560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.011     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. R. Chou, J.M. Croswell, and T. Dana Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med. 155 2011 762 771
2. M.F. McNaughton-Collins, and M.J. Barry One man at a time - resolving the PSA controversy N Engl J Med 365 2011 1951 1953
3. G. Ploussard, J.I. Epstein, and R. Montironi The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer Eur Urol 60 2011 291 303
4. P.J. Bastian, B.H. Carter, and A. Bjartell Insignificant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from definition to clinical implications Eur Urol 55 2009 1321 1332
5. M.S. Soloway, C.T. Soloway, A. Eldefrawy, K. Acosta, B. Kava, and M. Manoharan Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment Eur Urol 58 2010 831 835
6. R.C. van den Bergh, S. Roemeling, and M.J. Roobol Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly Eur Urol 55 2009 1 8
7. J.J. Tosoian, B.J. Trock, and P. Landis Active Surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience J Clin Oncol 29 2011 2185 2190
8. J.M. Whitson, S.P. Porten, and J.F. Hilton The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer J Urol 185 2011 1656 1660
9. J.E. McNeal, and O. Haillot Patterns of spread of adenocarcinoma in the prostate as related to cancer volume Prostate 49 2001 48 57
10. A. Tewari, R. Indudhara, and K. Shinohara Comparison of transrectal ultrasound prostatic volume estimation with magnetic resonance imaging volume estimation and surgical specimen weight in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia J Clin Ultrasound 24 1996 169 174
11. 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
12. 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
13. E.R. DeLong, D.M. DeLong, and D.L. Clarke-Pearson Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach Biometrics 44 1988 837 845
14. 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
15. M. Louie-Johnsun, M. Neill, K. Treurnicht, M. Jarmulowicz, and C. Eden Final outcomes of patients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance but treated surgically BJU Int 104 2009 1501 1504
16. C.J. Kane, R. Im, and C.L. Amling Outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men who are candidates for active surveillance: results from the SEARCH database Urology 76 2010 695 700
17. 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
18. P. Mufarrij, A. Sankin, G. Godoy, and H. Lepor Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy Urology 76 2010 689 692
19. N. Suardi, A. Briganti, and A. Gallina Testing the most stringent criteria for selection of candidates for active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer BJU Int 105 2010 1548 1552