Impact of immediate TRUS rebiopsy in a patient cohort considering active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 31, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 739-743

  King, Andre C ^a   Livermore, Andrew ^a   Laurila, Timo A J ^a   Huang, Wei ^a   Jarrard, David F ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER RISK; CLINICAL EVALUATION; DISEASE COURSE; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE VOLUME; PROSTATECTOMY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; TUMOR VOLUME; URINE RETENTION;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; PROSTATE CANCER; TRUS BIOPSY;

AGED; BIOPSY; COHORT STUDIES; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK; TREATMENT OUTCOME; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 84880699871     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: 18732496     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.06.011     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Johansson J.E., Andrén O., Andersson S.O., et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2004, 291: 2713-2719.
2. Pearson J.D., Carter H.B. Natural history of changes in prostate specific antigen in early stage prostate cancer. J Urol 1994, 152: 1707-1708.
3. Klotz L. Low-risk prostate cancer can and should often be managed with active surveillance and selective delayed intervention. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2008, 5: 2-3.
4. Large M.C., Eggener S.E. Active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. Oncology 2009, 11: 974-999.
5. Carter H., 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.
6. Dall'Era M., Konety B. The optimal management of clinically localized prostate cancer: The debate continues. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2007, 4: 474-475.
7. Epstein J.L., Walsh P.C., Carmichael M., et al. Pathological and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994, 271: 368-374.
8. Conti S., Dall'era M., Fradet V., et al. Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol 2009, 181: 1628-1633.
9. Akin O., Hricak H. Imaging of prostate cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2007, 45: 207-222.
10. Capitanio U., Karakiewicz P.I., Valiquette L., et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant Gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2009, 73: 1087-1091.
11. Cooperberg M.R., Broering J.M., Kantoff P.W., et al. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: Risk assessment. J Urol 2007, 178: S14-S19.
12. Berglund R., Masterson T.A., Vora K.C., et al. Pathologic upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008, 180: 1964-1967.
13. Al Otaibi M., Ross P., Fahmy N., et al. Role of repeated biopsy of the prostate in predicting disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Cancer 2008, 113: 286-292.
14. Soloway M.S., Soloway C.T., Williams S., et al. Active surveillance: A reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: The Miami experience. BJU Int 2008, 101: 165-169.
15. Patel M.I., DeConcini D.T., Lopez-Corona E., et al. An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy. J Urol 2004, 171: 1520-1524.
16. Freedland S.J., Kane C.J., Amling C.L., et al. Delay of radical prostatectomy and risk of biochemical progression in men with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2006, 175: 1298-1302.
17. Warlick C., Trock B.J., Landis P., et al. Delayed vs. immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006, 98: 355-357.
18. Harnden P., Naylor B., Shelley M.D., et al. 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: 971-981.
19. Quann P., Jarrard D.F., Huang W. Current prostate biopsy protocols cannot reliably identify patients for focal therapy: Correlation of low-risk prostate cancer on biopsy with radical prostatectomy findings. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2010, 3: 401-407.
20. Jones J.S. Saturation biopsy for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007, 99: 1340-1344.
21. Boccon-Gibod L.M., de Longchamps N.B., Toublanc M., et al. Prostate saturation biopsy in the reevaluation of microfocal prostate cancer. J Urol 2006, 176: 961-963.
22. Stewart C.S., Leibovich B.C., Weaver A.L., et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol 2001, 166: 86-92.
23. Fleshner N., Klotz L. Role of 'saturation biopsy' in the detection of prostate cancer among difficult diagnostic cases. Urology 2002, 60: 93-97.
24. Abouassaly R., Tan N., Moussa A., et al. Risk of prostate cancer after diagnosis of atypical glands suspicious for carcinoma on saturation and traditional biopsies. J Urol 2008, 180: 911-914. Discussion 914.
25. Batura D., Rao G.G., Nielsen P.B. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in intestinal flora of patients undergoing prostatic biopsy: Implications for prophylaxis and treatment of infections after biopsy. BJU Int 2010, 106: 1017-1020.
26. Horcajada J.P., Busto M., Grau S., et al. High prevalence of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing enterobacteriaceae in bacteremia after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: A need for changing preventive protocol. Urology 2009, 74: 1195-1199.