Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study of 2,323 patients

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 71.e1-71.e9

  Ploussard, Guillaume ^a,b   Isbarn, Hendrik ^c   Briganti, Alberto ^d   Sooriakumaran, Prasanna ^e,f   Surcel, Christian I ^g   Salomon, Laurent ^h   Freschi, Massimo ^d   Mirvald, Cristian ^g   van der Poel, Henk G ⁱ   Jenkins, Anna ^j   Ost, Piet ^k   van Oort, Inge M ^l   Yossepowitch, Ofer ^m   Giannarini, Gianluca ⁿ   van den Bergh, Roderick C N ^o  

^a SAINT LOUIS HOSPITAL   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

^d SAN RAFFAELE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^f KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^g FUNDENI CLINICAL INSTITUTE   (Romania)

^h HENRI MONDOR HOSPITAL   (France)

ⁱ NETHERLANDS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^j CHURCHILL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^k GHENT UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^l RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^m TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF UDINE   (Italy)

^o UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

more..

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Gleason score; Outcomes; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Reclassification

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; ADULT; ADVANCED CANCER; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; COHORT ANALYSIS; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MALE GENITAL TRACT PARAMETERS; MIDDLE AGED; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN DENSITY; PROSTATE VOLUME; PROSTATECTOMY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK FACTOR; CANCER GRADING; CLINICAL TRIAL; ECHOGRAPHY; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL MONITORING; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; INTERVENTIONAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

AGED; COHORT STUDIES; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL MONITORING; HUMANS; IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL;

EID: 84923616931     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: 18732496     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.07.007     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Siegel R., Ma J., Zou Z., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014, 64:9-29.
2. Ploussard G., Epstein J.I., Montironi R., et al. The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011, 60:291-303.
3. Dall'Era M.A., Albertsen P.C., Bangma C., et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012, 62:976-983.
4. Stattin P., Holmberg E., Johansson J.E., Holmberg L., Adolfsson J., Hugosson J. National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden. Outcomes in localized prostate cancer: National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010, 102:950-958.
5. van den Bergh R.C., Roemeling S., Roobol M.J., Roobol W., Schröder F.H., Bangma C.H. Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2007, 52:1560-1563.
6. van As N.J., Norman A.R., 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.
7. 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.
8. Iremashvili V., Pelaez L., Manoharan M., Jorda M., Rosenberg D.L., Soloway M.S. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol 2012, 62:462-468.
9. Palisaar J.R., Noldus J., Löppenberg 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, 110:172-181.
10. El Hajj A., Ploussard G., de la Taille A., Allory Y., Vordos D., Hoznek A., et al. Patient selection and pathological outcomes using currently available active surveillance criteria. BJU Int 2013, 112:471-477.
11. Suardi N., Capitanio U., Chun F.K., Graefen M., Perrotte P., Schlomm T., 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. Conti S.L., Dall'era M., Fradet V., Cowan J.E., Simko J., Carroll P.R. Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol 2009, 181:1628-1633.
13. van den Bergh R.C., Roemeling S., Roobol M.J., et al. Gleason score 7 screen-detected prostate cancers initially managed expectantly: outcomes in 50 men. BJU Int 2009, 103:1472-1477.
14. Epstein J.I., Allsbrook W.C., Amin M.B., Egevad L.L. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005, 29:1228-1242. ISUP Grading Committee.
15. Busch J., Magheli A., Leva N., et al. Higher rates of upgrading and upstaging in older patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and qualifying for active surveillance. BJU Int 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.12466.
16. Suardi N., Gallina A., Capitanio U., Salonia A., Lughezzani G., Freschi M., et al. Age-adjusted validation of the most stringent criteria for active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer patients. Cancer 2012, 118:973-980.
17. Selvadurai E.D., Singhera M., Thomas K., et al. Medium-term outcomes of active surveillance for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2013, 64:981-987.
18. McVey G.P., McPhail S., Fowler S., McIntosh G., Gillatt D., Parker C.C. Initial management of low-risk localized prostate cancer in the UK: analysis of the British Association of Urological Surgeons Cancer Registry. BJU Int 2010, 106:1161-1164.
19. Bul M., Zhu X., Rannikko A., et al. Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: results from a prospective observational study. Eur Urol 2012, 62:195-200.
20. Hong S.K., Sternberg I.A., Keren Paz G.E., et al. Definitive pathology at radical prostatectomy is commonly favorable in men following initial active surveillance. Eur Urol 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.08.001.
21. Carter H.B., Albertsen P.C., Barry M.J., et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol 2013, 190:419-426.
22. Berney D.M., Algaba F., Camparo P., et al. The reasons behind variation in Gleason grading of prostatic biopsies: areas of agreement and misconception among 266 European pathologists. Histopathology 2014, 64:405-411.
23. Ploussard G., Xylinas E., Salomon L., et al. The role of biopsy core number in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol 2009, 56:891-898.
24. 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 2013, 31:1060-1066.
25. Berglund R.K., Masterson T.A., Vora K.C., Eggener S.E., Eastham J.A., Guillonneau B.D. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008, 180:1964-1967.
26. Barzell W.E., Melamed M.R., Cathcart P., Moore C.M., Ahmed H.U., 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.
27. Abouassaly R., Lane B.R., Jones J.S. Staging saturation biopsy in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance protocol. Urology 2008, 71:573-577.
28. Margel D., Yap S.A., Lawrentschuk N., et al. Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol 2012, 187:1247-1252.
29. 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.