Expanded criteria to identify men eligible for active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer at johns hopkins: A preliminary analysis

Journal of Urology

Volumn 190, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 2033-2038

  Reese, Adam C ^a   Landis, Patricia ^a   Han, Misop ^a   Epstein, Jonathan I ^a   Carter, H Ballentine ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Prostate; Prostate specific antigen; Prostatectomy; Prostatic neoplasms; Risk

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE FREE SURVIVAL; CANCER RISK; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY;

EID: 84888640681     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: 15273792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.015     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Moyer VA and United States Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for prostate cancer: U. S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:120.
2. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM and Carroll PR: Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1117.
3. Welch HG and Albertsen PC: Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1325.
4. Xia J, Trock BJ, Cooperberg MR et al: Prostate cancer mortality following active surveillance versus immediate radical prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:5471.
5. Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC et al: Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008;180:1964.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Williams S et al: Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int 2008;101:165.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG et al: Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre 'Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance' study. BJU Int 2010;105:956.
12. Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M et al: Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a headtohead comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol 2012;62:462.
13. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M et al: Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994;271:368.
14. 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.
15. Tewari A, Indudhara R, Shinohara K et al: Comparison of transrectal ultrasound prostatic volume estimation with magnetic resonance imaging volume estimation and surgical specimen weight in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Clin Ultrasound 1996;24:169.
16. Reese AC, Cooperberg MR and Carroll PR: Minimal impact of clinical stage on prostate cancer prognosis among contemporary patients with clinically localized disease. J Urol 2010;184:114.
17. Reese AC, Sadetsky N, Carroll PR et al: Inaccuracies in assignment of clinical stage for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2011;117:283.
18. Bul M, van den Bergh RC, Zhu X et al: Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012;110:1672.
19. Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C et al: Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. J Urol 2002;167:1664.
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.
21. Beauval JB, Ploussard G, Soulie M et al: Pathologic findings in radical prostatectomy specimens from patients eligible for active surveillance with highly selective criteria: a multicenter study. Urology 2012;80:656.
22. Jeldres C, Suardi N, Walz J et al: Validation of the contemporary Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men. Eur Urol 2008;54:1306.
23. Park HS, Lee K and Moon KC: Determination of the cutoff value of the proportion of cystic change for prognostic stratification of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2011;186:423.
24. Palisaar JR, Noldus J, Loppenberg B et al: Comprehensive report on prostate cancer misclassification by 16 currently used low-risk and active surveillance criteria. BJU Int 2012;110:E172.
25. Lane JA, Hamdy FC, Martin RM et al: Latest results from the UK trials evaluating prostate cancer screening and treatment: the CAP and ProtecT studies. Eur J Cancer 2010;46:3095.
26. Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R et al: The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011;60:291.