Analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (PRIAS)

BJU International

Volumn 111, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 53-59

  El Hajj, Albert ^a   Ploussard, Guillaume ^a   De La Taille, Alexandre ^a   Allory, Yves ^a   Vordos, Dimitri ^a   Hoznek, Andras ^a   Abbou, Claude Clément ^a   Salomon, Laurent ^a  

^a HENRI MONDOR HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

active surveillance; biopsy; low risk; prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE FREE SURVIVAL; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER GRADING; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER STAGING; DISEASE COURSE; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PREDICTION; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE CANCER RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; PROSTATECTOMY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR;

EID: 84871617894     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11276.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. 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: 126-131
2. Matthew R, Cooperberg PR, Klotz L,. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 3669-3676
3. Dall'Era MA, Cowan JE, Simko J, et al. Surgical management after active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: pathological outcomes compared with men undergoing immediate treatment. BJU Int 2011; 107: 1232-1237
4. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Roobol W, Schroder FH, Bangma CH,. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 1560-1563
5. Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Rannikko A, et al. Predictors of unfavourable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance program. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 370-377
6. Conti SL, Dall'era M, Fradet V, Cowan JE, Simko J, Carroll PR,. Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol 2009; 181: 1628-1634
7. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB,. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271: 368-374
8. Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Dunn JK, Stamey TA, Scardino PT,. The pathological features and prognosis of prostate cancer detectable with current diagnostic tests. J Urol 1994; 152: 1714-1720
9. Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JL, Partin AW,. Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer 2004; 101: 2001-2005
10. Jeldres C, Suardi N, Walz J, et al. Validation of the contemporary Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 1306-1313
11. 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: 1526-1530
12. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 291-303
13. 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: 2185-2190
14. Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, Eggener SE, Eastham JA, Guillonneau BD,. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008; 180: 1964-1967
15. van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der, Poel HG, et al. Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre 'Prostate Cancer Research International: active Surveillance' study. BJU Int 2010; 105: 956-962
16. van den Bergh RC, van Vugt HA, Korfage IJ, et al. Disease insight and treatment perception of men on active surveillance for early prostate cancer. BJU Int 2010; 105: 322-328
17. Suardi N, Briganti A, Gallina A, et al. Testing the most stringent criteria for selection of candidates for active surveillance in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2010; 105: 1548-1552
18. Mufarrij P, Sankin A, Godoy G, Lepor H,. Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology 2010; 76: 689-692
19. 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: 414-418
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: 973-980
21. Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Salomon L, et al. The role of biopsy core number in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol 2009; 56: 891-898
22. Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C, et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol 2007; 178: 2359-2364
23. Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Yu X, Antenor JA, Suarez BK, Catalona WJ,. Prostate specific antigen density correlates with features of prostate cancer aggressiveness. J Urol 2007; 177: 505-509
24. Menon M, Bhandari M, Gupta N, et al. Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 838-846
25. Barocas DA, Salem S, Kordan Y, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival. J Urol 2010; 183: 990-996
26. Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Iocca A, Scherer B, Zincke H,. Use of Gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2001; 165: 119-125
27. Lake AM, He C, Wood DP Jr,. Focal positive surgical margins decrease disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy even in organ-confined disease. Urology 2010; 76: 1212-1216
28. 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: 831-835
29. Rampersaud EN, Sun L, Moul JW, Madden J, Freedland SJ,. Percent tumor involvement and risk of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2008; 180: 571-576
30. Montie JE,. Screen detected, low volume prostate cancer: the case for active treatment. Urol Oncol 2008; 26: 511-515