Comparison of pathological outcomes of active surveillance candidates who underwent radical prostatectomy using contemporary protocols at a high-volume Korean center

Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 42, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1079-1085

  Lee, Dong Hoon ^a   Jung, Ha Bum ^a   Lee, Seung Hwan ^a   Rha, Koon Ho ^a   Choi, Young Deuk ^a   Hong, Sung Jun ^a   Yang, Seung Choul ^a   Chung, Byung Ha ^a  

^a Yonsei University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Korean; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RESEARCH; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; GLEASON SCORE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; KOREA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; COHORT STUDIES; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROGNOSIS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; REPUBLIC OF KOREA;

EID: 84868146612     PISSN: 03682811     EISSN: 14653621     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hys147     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc 1994;271:368-74.
2. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 2011;185:121-5.
3. Harnden P, Naylor B, Shelley MD, Clements H, Coles B, Mason MD. 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.
4. Klotz L. Cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Curr Opin Urol 2012;22:203-9.
5. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:2185-90.
6. Whitson JM, Porten SP, Hilton JF, et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2011;185:1656-60.
7. Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K, et al. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2011;185:477-82.
8. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, Acosta K, Kava B, Manoharan M. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 2010;58:831-5.
9. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol 2009;55:1-8.
10. Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Shiraishi T, et al. Prospective evaluation of selection criteria for active surveillance in Japanese patients with stage T1cN0M0 prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2008;38:122-8.
11. Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M, Jorda M, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS. Pathologic Prostate Cancer Characteristics in Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: A Head-to-Head Comparison of Contemporary Protocols. Eur Urol 2012;62:462-8.
12. Sugimoto M, Shiraishi T, Tsunemori H, et al. Pathological findings at radical prostatectomy in Japanese prospective active surveillance cohort. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2010;40:973-9.
13. Mufarrij P, Sankin A, Godoy G, Lepor H. Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology 2010;76:689-92.
14. Kane CJ, Im R, Amling CL, et al. Outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men who are candidates for active surveillance: results from the SEARCH database. Urology 2010;76:695-700.
15. Goto Y, Nozumi K, Miyazaki K, et al. Active surveillance criteria for prostate cancer: can they be applied to Japanese patients? Int J Urol 2012;19:163-6.
16. Tewari A, Indudhara R, Shinohara K, et al. 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 1996;24:169-74.
17. Jung KW, Park S, Kong HJ, et al. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2009. Cancer Res Treat 2012;44:11-24.
18. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:126-31.
19. Holmström B, Holmberg E, Egevad L, et al. Outcome of primary versus deferred radical prostatectomy in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden Follow-Up Study. J Urol 2010;184:1322-7.
20. Suardi N, Gallina A, Capitanio U, et al. Age-adjusted validation of the most stringent criteria for active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer patients. Cancer 2012;118:973-80.
21. Bangma CH, Bul M, Roobol M. The Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance study. Curr Opin Urol 2012;22: 216-21.
22. Chung JS, Choi HY, Song HR, et al. Nomogram to predict insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in Korean men: a multi-center study. Yonsei Med J 2011;52:74-80.
23. Yeom CD, Lee SH, Park KK, Park SU, Chung BH. Are clinically insignificant prostate cancers really insignificant among Korean men? Yonsei Med J 2012;53:358-62.
24. Lee SE, Kim DS, Lee WK, et al. Application of the Epstein criteria for prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer in Korean men. BJU Int 2010;105:1526-30.
25. National Comprehensive Cancer Networkw® (NCCN). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Asia Consensus Statement: Prostate Cancer. [http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/prostate-asia.pdf].