Aligning evidence and practice: Future research needs to increase utilization of active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 277-282

  Carter, H Ballentine ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

active surveillance; favorable risk prostate cancer; prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RISK; CANCER SPECIFIC SURVIVAL; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER TISSUE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMORBIDITY; CONSULTATION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DISEASE SPECIFIC SURVIVAL; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; GLEASON SCORE; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; LABORATORY TEST; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARDIZATION; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; TUMOR BIOPSY; BLOOD; CANCER GRADING; DISEASE COURSE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; MALE; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); WATCHFUL WAITING;

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

DISEASE PROGRESSION; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84928552780     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: 14736586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000153     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Time trends and local variation in primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:1117-1123.
2. Hoffman KE, Niu J, Shen Y, et al. Physician variation in management of low-risk prostate cancer: A population-based cohort study. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174:1450-1459.
3. Womble PR, Montie JE, Ye Z, et al., for the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement C. Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in michigan with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2015; 67:44-50.
4. Amaro A, Esposito AI, Gallina A, et al. Validation of proposed prostate cancer biomarkers with gene expression data: A long road to travel. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2014; 33:657-671.
5. Lughezzani G, Briganti A, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Predictive and prognostic models in radical prostatectomy candidates: A critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 2010; 58:687-700.
6. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 2012; 61:1019-1024.
7. Zlotta AR, Egawa S, Pushkar D, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer on autopsy: cross-sectional study on unscreened Caucasian and Asian men. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013; 105:1050-1058.
8. van den Bergh RC, Ahmed HU, Bangma CH, et al. Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur Urol 2014; 65:1023-1031.
9. Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 2011; 186:1818-1824.
10. Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol 2012; 61:177-184.
11. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013; 64:713-719.
12. Fradet V, Kurhanewicz J, Cowan JE, et al. Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2010; 256:176-183.
13. Mullins JK, Bonekamp D, Landis P, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int 2013; 111:1037-1045.
14. Hoeks CM, Somford DM, van Oort IM, et al. Value of 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-guided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: A prospective multicenter cohort study. Invest Radiol 2013.
15. Sonn GA, Margolis DJ, Marks LS. Target detection: magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol 2013.
16. Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al. Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol 2014; 192:385-390.
17. Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Walsh PC, et al. Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011; 185:869-875.
18. Kryvenko ON, Carter HB, Trock BJ, Epstein JI. Biopsy criteria for determining appropriateness for active surveillance in the modern era. Urology 2014; 83:869-874.
19. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 2013; 268:144-152.
20. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al., European Society of Urogenital R. ESUR prostate MR guidelines. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:746-757.
21. Marks L, Young S, Natarajan S. MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol 2013; 23:43-50.
22. Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol 2014.
23. Mullins JK, Carter HB. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and active surveillance for prostate cancer: future directions. BJU Int 2014; 113:844-845.
24. Sonn GA, Filson CP, Chang E, et al. Initial experience with electronic tracking of specific tumor sites in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2014.
25. Cooperberg MR, Davicioni E, Crisan A, et al. Combined value of validated clinical and genomic risk stratification tools for predicting prostate cancer mortality in a high-risk prostatectomy cohort. Eur Urol 2014.
26. Klein EA, Cooperberg MR, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling. Eur Urol 2014; 66:550-560.
27. Cooperberg MR, Simko JP, Cowan JE, et al. Validation of a cell-cycle progression gene panel to improve risk stratification in a contemporary prostatectomy cohort. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31:1428-1434.
28. Pepe MS, Janes H, Longton G, et al. Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am J Epidemiol 2004; 159:882-890.
29. Cuzick J, Berney DM, Fisher G, et al. Prognostic value of a cell cycle progression signature for prostate cancer death in a conservatively managed needle biopsy cohort. Br J Cancer 2012; 106:1095-1099.
30. Lotan TL, Carvalho FL, Peskoe SB, et al. PTEN loss is associated with upgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy. Mod Pathol 2014.
31. Cuzick J, Yang ZH, Fisher G, et al. Prognostic value of PTEN loss in men with conservatively managed localised prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 2013; 108:2582-2589.
32. Lotan TL, Gurel B, Sutcliffe S, et al. PTEN protein loss by immunostaining: Analytic validation and prognostic indicator for a high risk surgical cohort of prostate cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17:6563-6573.
33. Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W, et al. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156:591-595.
34. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:932-942.
35. Kim SP, Gross CP, Nguyen PY, et al. Specialty bias in treatment recommendations and quality of life among radiation oncologists and urologists for localized prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2014; 17:163-169.
36. Aizer AA, Paly JJ, Zietman AL, et al. Multidisciplinary care and pursuit of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:3071-3076.
37. Chabrera C, Zabalegui A, Bonet M, et al. A decision aid to support informed choices for patients recently diagnosed with prostate cancer: A randomized controlled trial. Cancer Nurs 2014.
38. Kaplan AL, Crespi CM, Saucedo JD, et al. Decisional conflict in economically disadvantaged men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: baseline results from a shared decision-making trial. Cancer 2014; 120:2721-2727.
39. Mishra MV, Bennett M, Vincent A, et al. Identifying barriers to patient acceptance of active surveillance: content analysis of online patient communications. PLoS One 2013; 8:e68563.
40. Chamie K, Saigal CS, Litwin MS. Patients and solipsism: the psychology of decision making for prostate cancer treatment. Urol Oncol 2011; 29:233-234.