How accurate is our clinical prediction of "minimal prostate cancer"?

Israel Medical Association Journal

Volumn 15, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 359-363

  Leibovici, Dan ^a   Shikanov, Sergey ^c   Gofrit, Ofer N ^b   Zagaja, Gregory P ^c   Shilo, Yaniv ^a   Shalhav, Arieh L ^c  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b HEBREW UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Classification and regression tree (CART); Clinical prediction; Minimal disease; Patient selection; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CANCER STAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PREDICTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE VOLUME; PROSTATECTOMY;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; BIOPSY, LARGE-CORE NEEDLE; BODY MASS INDEX; CARCINOMA; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM STAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SPECIMEN HANDLING;

EID: 84881485973     PISSN: 15651088     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Johansson JE, Andrén O, Andersson SO, et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2004; 291: 2713-19.
2. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005; 293: 2095-101.
3. Klotz L. Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention: Using natural history to guide treatment in good risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2004; 172: S48-50 (5 part 2).
4. Boccon-Gibod LM, Dumonceau O, Toublanc M, Ravery V, Boccon-Gibod LA. Micro-focal prostate cancer: a comparison of biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen features. Eur Urol 2005; 48: 895-9.
5. Johnstone PA, Rossi PJ, Jani AB, Master V. "Insignificant" prostate cancer on biopsy: pathologic results from subsequent radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2007; 10: 237-41.
6. Hoedemaeker RF, Van der Kwast TH. The clinical significance of a small focus of well-differentiated carcinoma of the prostate. BJU Int 2003; 92 (Suppl 2): 92-6.
7. Grossklaus DJ, Coffey CS, Shappell SB, Jack GS, Cookson MS. Prediction of tumour volume and pathological stage in radical prostatectomy is not improved by taking more prostate needle-biopsy cores. BJU Int 2001; 88: 722-6.
8. 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: 1967-8.
9. Lee MC, Dong F, Stephenson AJ, Jones JS, Magi-Galluzzi C, Klein EA. The Epstein criteria predict for organ-confined but not insignificant disease and a high likelihood of cure at radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 90-5.
10. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al. Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 7005-12.
11. Mikhail AA, Orvieto MA, Billatos ES, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: first 100 patients with one year of followup. Urology 2006; 68: 1275-9.
12. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E. Morphometric and clinical studies on 68 consecutive radical prostatectomies. J Urol 1988; 139: 1235-41.
13. Lewis RJ. An introduction to Classification and Regression Tree analysis. http://www.saem.org/download/lewis1.pdf.
14. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 1977-84.
15. Loeb S, Roehl KA, Thaxon CS, Catalona WL. Combined prostate-specific antigen density and biopsy features to predict "clinically insignificant" prostate cancer. Urology 2008; 72: 143-7.
16. Chun FK, Haese A, Ahyai SA, et al. Critical assessment of tools to predict clinically insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy in contemporary men. Cancer 2008; 113: 701-9.
17. Lee AK, Doytchinova T, Chen MH, et al. Can the core length involved with prostate cancer identify clinically insignificant disease in low risk patients diagnosed on the basis of a single positive core. Urol Oncol 2003; 21: 123-7.
18. Warlick C, Trock BJ, Landis P, Epstein JI, Carter HB. Delayed versus immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 355-7.
19. Nakanishi H, Wang X, Ochiai A, et al. A nomogram for predicting low-volume/low-grade prostate cancer: a tool in selecting patients for active surveillance. Cancer 2007; 110: 2441-7.
20. Rampersaud EN, Sun L, Moul JW, Madden J, Freedland SJ. Percent tumor involvement and risk of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy J Urol 2008; 180: 571-6.