Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and TRUS-biopsy accuracy in potential candidates for PRIAS active surveillance protocol

Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia

Volumn 84, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 272-275

  Lacetera, Vito ^a   Galosi, Andrea Benedetto ^b   Cantoro, Ubaldo ^a   Catanzariti, Francesco ^a   Mazzaferro, Daniele ^a   Cantoro, Daniele ^a   Quaresima, Luigi ^a   Conti, Alessandro ^a   Raquban, Rami ^a   Montironi, Rodolfo ^a,c   Muzzonigro, Giovanni ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÀ POLITECNICA DELLE MARCHE   (Italy)

^b Division of Urology   (Italy)

^c OSPEDALI RIUNITI   (Italy)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Low risk prostate cancer; Prostate biopsy; Staging accuracy; Transrectal ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CANCER STAGING; CONFERENCE PAPER; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY GUIDED BIOPSY;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84872804149     PISSN: 11243562     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Jemal R Siegel, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58:71-96.
2. AIRTUM working group 2009: i nuovi dati di incidenza e mortalità-periodo 2003-2005. Epidemiologia e prevenzione, gennaioaprile 2009 (suppl 1-2)
3. Etzioni R, et al. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94:981-990. (Pubitemid 34814727)
4. McGregor M, Hanley JA, Boivin JF, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: Estimating the magnitude of overdetection. CMAJ 1998; 159:1368-1372. (Pubitemid 29002427)
5. Cooperberg MR, et al. The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: Trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:21412149.
6. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005; 293:2095-2101. (Pubitemid 40617061)
7. Roderick CN, van den Bergh, et al. Prospective Validation of Active Surveillance in Prostate Cancer: The PRIAS Study. Eur Urol 2007; 52:1560-1563.
8. Bott SR, Ahmed HU, Hindley RG. The index lesion and focal therapy: an analysis of the pathological characteristics of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2010; 106:1607-11.
9. Lee F, Torp-Pedersen ST, Siders DB, et al. Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Radiology 1989; 170:609-15. (Pubitemid 19062568)
10. Washington SL, Bonham M, Whitson JM, et al. Transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy does not reliably identify dominant cancer location in men with low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011.
11. Hruby G, Choo R, Klots L, et al. The role of serial transrectal ultrasonography in a 'watchful waiting' protocol for men with localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2001; 87:643-7. (Pubitemid 34293755)
12. Suardi N, et al. Testing the most stringent criteria for selection of candidates for active surveillance in patients with low risk prostate cancer. BJUI 2009; 105:1548-1552.
13. Van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG, et al. Shortterm outcomes of the prospective multicenter Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance Study. BJU Int 2010; 105:956-62.
14. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious, et al. Image-Guided Prostate Biopsy Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Derived Targets: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol 2012.
15. Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T, et al. Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol 2011; 186:458-46.