Patient selection and pathological outcomes using currently available active surveillance criteria

BJU International

Volumn 112, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 471-477

  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; low risk; prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE FREE SURVIVAL; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; COMORBIDITY; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; SEMINAL VESICLE;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; LOW RISK; PROSTATE CANCER; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY;

HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84880780673     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.12154     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 291-303
2. 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
3. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L,. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 3669-3676
4. Klotz L,. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: trials and tribulations. World J Urol 2008; 26: 437-442
5. Dall'era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 976-983
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: 1628-1633
7. 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
8. de la, Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L, et al. Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology 2003; 61: 1181-1186
9. Guichard G, Larre S, Gallina A, et al. Extended 21-sample needle biopsy protocol for diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1000 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 430-435
10. Ploussard G, Marchand C, Nicolaiew N, et al. Prospective evaluation of an extended 21-core biopsy scheme as initial prostate cancer diagnostic strategy. Eur Urol 2012; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.049 [Epub ahead of print]
11. Hardie C, Parker C, Norman A, et al. Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2005; 95: 956-960
12. van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K, et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 1297-1305
13. 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
14. 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
15. Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008; 112: 2664-2670
16. Patel MI, DeConcini DT, Lopez-Corona E, Ohori M, Wheeler T, Scardino PT,. An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy. J Urol 2004; 171: 1520-1524
17. 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
18. 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
19. Abern MR, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, et al. Delayed radical prostatectomy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer is associated with biochemical recurrence: possible implications for active surveillance from the SEARCH database. Prostate 2013; 73: 409-417
20. Cooperberg MR, Cowan JE, Hilton JF, et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 228-234
21. 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: 462-468
22. El Hajj A, Ploussard G, de la, Taille A, et al. Analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (PRIAS). BJU Int 2013; 111: 53-59
23. Palisaar JR, Noldus J, Loppenberg B, von Bodman C, Sommerer F, Eggert T,. Comprehensive report on prostate cancer misclassification by 16 currently used low-risk and active surveillance criteria. BJU Int 2012; 110: E172-181
24. Barzell WE, Melamed MR, Cathcart P, Moore CM, Ahmed HU, Emberton M,. Identifying candidates for active surveillance: an evaluation of the repeat biopsy strategy for men with favorable risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 188: 762-767
25. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Akin O, et al. Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 109: 1315-1322