Spatial distribution of positive cores improves the selection of patients with low-risk prostate cancer as candidates for active surveillance

BJU International

Volumn 112, Issue 4, 2013, Pages

  Abdollah, Firas ^a   Suardi, Nazareno ^a   Capitanio, Umberto ^a   Gallina, Andrea ^a   Sun, Maxine ^b   Villa, Luca ^a   Scattoni, Vincenzo ^a   Bianchi, Marco ^a   Tutolo, Manuela ^a   Fossati, Nicola ^a   Karakiewicz, Pierre ^b   Rigatti, Patrizio ^a   Montorsi, Francesco ^a   Briganti, Alberto ^a  

^a SAN RAFFAELE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^b CENTRE HOSPITALIER DE L UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

active surveillance; positive cores; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer; spatial distribution

Indexed keywords

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BILATERAL CANCER; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; ONCOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; PATIENT SELECTION; POSITIVE CORES SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE VOLUME; PROSTATECTOMY; TUMOR LATERALITY; TUMOR VOLUME;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; POSITIVE CORES; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION;

HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84880804353     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.12152     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Cooperberg MR, Moul JW, Carroll PR,. The changing face of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 8146-8151
2. Abdollah F, Sun M, Schmitges J, et al. Competing-risks mortality after radiotherapy vs. observation for localized prostate cancer: a population-based study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 84: 95-103
3. Abdollah F, Sun M, Schmitges J, et al. Cancer-specific and other-cause mortality after radical prostatectomy versus observation in patients with prostate cancer: competing-risks analysis of a large North American population-based cohort. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 920-930
4. Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R, et al. A competing-risks analysis of survival after alternative treatment modalities for prostate cancer patients: 1988-2006. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 88-95
5. Bastian PJ, Carter BH, Bjartell A, et al. Insignificant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from definition to clinical implications. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1321-1330
6. 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
7. van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1-8
8. Whitson JM, Porten SP, Hilton JF, et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185: 1656-1660
9. Adamy A, Yee DS, Matsushita K, et al. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185: 477-482
10. Scattoni V, Raber M, Abdollah F, et al. Biopsy schemes with the fewest cores for detecting 95% of the prostate cancers detected by a 24-core biopsy. Eur Urol 2010; 57: 1-8
11. Scattoni V, Raber M, Capitanio U, et al. The optimal rebiopsy prostatic scheme depends on patient clinical characteristics: results of a recursive partitioning analysis based on a 24-core systematic scheme. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 834-841
12. Montorsi F, Salonia A, Suardi N, et al. Improving the preservation of the urethral sphincter and neurovascular bundles during open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2005; 48: 938-945
13. Walsh PC,. Preservation of sexual function in the surgical treatment of prostatic cancer-an anatomic surgical approach. Important Adv Oncol 1988; 161-170
14. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 480-487
15. McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA,. Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol 1988; 12: 897-906
16. Capitanio U, Suardi N, Briganti A, et al. Influence of obesity on tumour volume in patients with prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 109: 678-684
17. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 2011; 185: 121-125
18. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L,. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 3669-3676
19. Ploussard G, de la Taille A, Terry S, et al. Detailed biopsy pathologic features as predictive factors for initial reclassification in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance. Urol Oncol 2012; doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.12.018 [Epub ahead of print]
20. 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
21. Suardi N, Capitanio U, Chun FK, et al. Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of pathologic features. Cancer 2008; 113: 2068-2072
22. 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
23. 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
24. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 1248-1253