Detailed biopsy pathologic features as predictive factors for initial reclassification in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 31, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1060-1066

  Ploussard, Guillaume ^a   de la Taille, Alexandre ^a   Terry, Stéphane ^a   Allory, Yves ^a   Ouzaïd, Idir ^a   Vacherot, Francis ^a   Abbou, Claude Clément ^a   Salomon, Laurent ^a  

^a HENRI MONDOR HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Criteria; Low risk; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Reclassification; Upgrading; Upstaging

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER PATIENT; FEMALE; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; TUMOR BIOPSY; TUMOR VOLUME;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; CRITERIA; LOW RISK; PROSTATE CANCER; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; RECLASSIFICATION; UPGRADING; UPSTAGING;

AGED; BIOPSY; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM STAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROGNOSIS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84884670286     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: 18732496     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.12.018     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: For whom?. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23(32):8165-8169.
2. Tosoian J.J., Trock B.J., Landis P., et al. Active Surveillance Program for Prostate Cancer: An Update of the Johns Hopkins Experience. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29:2185-2190.
3. Klotz L., Zhang L., Lam A., et al. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28:126-131.
4. van den Bergh R.C.N., Roemeling S., Roobol M.J., et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol 2009, 55:1-8.
5. Epstein J.I., Walsh P.C., Carmichael M., et al. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994, 271:368-374.
6. Kattan M.W., Eastham J.A., Wheeler T.M., et al. Counseling men with prostate cancer: A nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J Urol 2003, 170:1792-1797.
7. 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, 110:2441-2447.
8. Steyerberg E.W., Roobol M.J., Kattan M.W., et al. Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: Validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol 2007, 177:107-112.
9. Ochiai A., Trpkov K., Yilmaz A., et al. Validation of a prediction model for low volume/low grade cancer: Application in selecting patients for active surveillance. J Urol 2007, 177:907-910.
10. van As N.J., Norman A.R., Thomas K., et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localized prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 2008, 54:1297-1305.
11. Suardi N., Capitanio U., Chun F.K., 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.
12. Ploussard G., Salomon L., Xylinas E., et al. Pathologic findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance-does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria?. J Urol 2010, 183:539-544.
13. Bul M., van den Bergh R.C., Rannikko A., et al. Predictors of unfavorable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance program. Eur Urol 2012, 61:370-377.
14. Porten S.P., Whitson J.M., Cowan J.E., et al. Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29:2795-2800.
15. Berglund R.K., 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.
16. Kotb A.F., Tanguay S., Luz M.A., et al. Relationship between initial PSA density with future PSA kinetics and repeat biopsies in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2011, 14:53-57.
17. Venkitaraman R., Norman A., Woode-Amissah R., et al. Predictors of histological disease progression in untreated, localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2007, 178:833-837.
18. San Francisco I.F., Werner L., Regan M.M., et al. Risk stratification and validation of prostate specific antigen density as independent predictor of progression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance. J Urol 2011, 185:471-476.
19. Ng M.K., Van As N., Thomas K., et al. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics in untreated, localized prostate cancer: PSA velocity vs. PSA doubling time. BJU Int 2009, 103:872-876.
20. 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.
21. Cooperberg M.R., Broering J.M., Kantoff P.W., et al. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: Risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 2007, 178:14-19.
22. Ploussard G., Xylinas E., Salomon L., et al. The role of biopsy core number in selecting prostate cancer patients or active surveillance. Eur Urol 2009, 56:891-898.
23. Ochiai A., Troncoso P., Babaian R.J. Comparison of cancers detected at only a sextant or alternative location. BJU Int 2008, 101:837-840.
24. Chen M.E., Johnston D.A., Tang K., et al. Detailed mapping of prostate carcinoma foci: Biopsy strategy implications. Cancer 2000, 89:1800-1809.
25. Ko J.S., Landis P., Carter H.B., et al. Effect of intra-observer variation in prostate volume measurement on prostate-specific antigen density calculations among prostate cancer active surveillance participants. BJU Int 2011, 108:1739-1742.
26. Descazeaud A., Rubin M., Chemama S., et al. Saturation biopsy protocol enhances prediction of pT3 and surgical margin status on prostatectomy specimen. World J Urol 2006, 24:676-680.
27. Turley R.S., Terris M.K., Kane C.J., et al. The association between prostate size and Gleason score upgrading depends on the number of biopsy cores obtained: Results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital Database. BJU Int 2008, 102:1074-1079.