Many young men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screen-detected prostate cancers may be candidates for active surveillance

BJU International

Volumn 111, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 934-940

  Kim, Jeri ^a   Ebertowski, James ^b   Janiga, Matthew ^c   Arzola, Jorge ^d   Gillespie, Gayle ^d   Fountain, Michael ^e   Soderdahl, Douglas ^b   Canby Hagino, Edith ^b   Elsamanoudi, Sally ^f   Gurski, Jennifer ^g   Davis, John W ^a   Parker, Patricia A ^a   Boyd, Douglas D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^b SAN ANTONIO MILITARY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c DAVID GRANT MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d WRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE   (United States)

^e AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

^f WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^g WOMACK ARMY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

active surveillance; overtreatment; risk assessment; very low risk prostatic neoplasms

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CHI SQUARE TEST; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; FISHER EXACT TEST; GLEASON SCORE; HELP SEEKING BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MILITARY PERSONNEL; NEOPLASM GRADING; PATIENT SELECTION; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84876895967     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11768.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Schroder FH,. Prevalence and characteristics of screen-detected prostate carcinomas at low prostate-specific antigen levels: aggressive or insignificant? BJU Int 2005; 95: 231-237
2. Dall'Era MA, Konety BR,. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: selection of patients and predictors of progression. Nat Clin Pract 2008; 5: 277-283
3. 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
4. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, et al. Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 374-383
5. Welch HG, Albertsen PC,. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 1325-1329
6. Bechis SK, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR,. Impact of age at diagnosis on prostate cancer treatment and survival. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 235-241
7. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR,. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1117-1123
8. Barry MJ, Gallagher PM, Skinner JS, Fowler FJ,. Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of Medicare-age men. J Clin Invest 2012; 30: 513-518
9. Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, et al. The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 1171-1177
10. Warlick C, Trock BJ, Landis P, Epstein JI, Ballentine-Carter H,. Delayed versus immediate surgical interventions and prostate cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 355-357
11. Klotz LH,. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a review. Curr Urol Rep 2010; 11: 165-171
12. Corcoran AT, Peele PB, Benoit RM,. Cost comparison between watchful waiting with active surveillance and active treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 2010; 76: 703-709
13. Hayes JH, Ollendorf DA, Pearson SD, et al. Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer. JAMA 2010; 304: 2373-2380
14. Rogers D, Boyd DD, Fox EE, et al. Prostate cancer incidence in USAF Officers: aviators compared with non-aviators. Aviat Space Environ Med 2011; 82: 1067-1070
15. Ramsey SD, Zeliadt SB, Fedorenko CR, et al. Patient preferences an urologist recommendations among local-stage prostate cancer patients who present for initial consulation and second opinions. World J Urol 2010; 29: 3-9
16. Resnick MJ, Lee DJ, Magerfleisch L, et al. Repeat prostate biopsy and the incremental risk of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. Urology 2011; 77: 548-552
17. Lawrentschuk N, Klotz LH,. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: an update. Nat Rev Urol 2011; 8: 312-320
18. 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
19. Barocas DA, Cowan JE, Smith JA, Carroll PR,. What percentage of patients with newly diagnosed carcinoma of the prostate are candidates for surveillance? An analysis of the CaPSURE database. J Urol 2008; 180: 1330-1335
20. Mullins JK, Han M, Pierorazio PM, Partin AW,. Radical prostatectomy outcome in men 65 years old or older with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 187: 1620-1625
21. Trpkov K, Yilmaz A, Bismar TA, Montironi R,. 'Insignificant' prostate cancer on prostatectomy and cystoprostatectomy: variation on a theme 'low-volume/low-grade' prostate cancer? BJU Int 2010; 106: 304-315
22. Bul M, Zhu X, Rannikko A, et al. Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: results from a prospective observational study. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 195-200
23. Seiler D, Randazzo M, Klotz L, et al. Pathological stage distribution in patients treated with radical prostatectomy reflecting the need for protocol-based active surveillance: results from a contemporary European patient cohort. BJU Int 2011; 110: 195-200
24. Wolters T, Roobol M, van Leewen PJ, et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignifiicant prostate cancer usign a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 2011; 185: 121-125
25. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz LH,. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 3669-3676
26. Mohan R, Beydoun H, Barnes-Ely ML, et al. Patients survival expectations before localized prostate cancer treatment by treatment status. J Am Board Fam Med 2009; 22: 247-256
27. Davison BJ, Oliffe JL, Pickles T, Mroz L,. Factors influencing men undertaking active surveillance for the management of low-risk prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 2009; 36: 89-96
28. Lin DW, Porter M, Montgomery B,. Treatment and survival outcomes in young men diagnosed with prostate cancer: a population based cohort study. Cancer 2009; 115: 2863-2871
29. Parker PM, Rice KR, Sterbis JR, et al. Prostate cancer in men less than the age of 50: a comparison of race and outcomes. Urology 2011; 78: 110-115
30. Gorin MA, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, Soloway MS,. Factors that influence patient enrollment in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2011; 77: 588-591
31. Sidana A, Hernandez DJ, Feng Z, et al. Treatment decision-making for localized prostate cancer: what younger men choose and why. Prostate 2012; 75: 58-64