Conditional probability of reclassification in an active surveillance program for prostate cancer

Journal of Urology

Volumn 193, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1950-1955

  Alam, Ridwan ^a   Carter, H Ballentine ^a   Landis, Patricia ^a   Epstein, Jonathan I ^a   Mamawala, Mufaddal ^a  

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

Author keywords

classification; diagnosis; prostate specific antigen; prostatic neoplasms; risk

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER SURVIVAL; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; LOW RISK POPULATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; REPEAT PROCEDURE; RISK ASSESSMENT; CLASSIFICATION; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; VERY ELDERLY; WATCHFUL WAITING;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84929277970     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: 15273792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.12.091     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. G. Draisma, R. Boer, and S.J. Otto Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst 95 2003 868
2. V.A. Moyer Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med 157 2012 120
3. S.R. Harlan, M.R. Cooperberg, and E. Elkin Time trends and characteristics of men choosing watchful waiting for initial treatment of localized prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE J Urol 170 2003 1804
4. L. Klotz, L. Zhang, and A. Lam Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer J Clin Oncol 28 2010 126
5. L. Klotz, and M. Emberton Management of low risk prostate cancer: active surveillance and focal therapy Curr Opin Urol 24 2014 270
6. V. Fradet, J. Kurhanewicz, and J.E. Cowan Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging Radiology 256 2010 176
7. J.J. Tosoian, B.J. Trock, and P. Landis Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience J Clin Oncol 29 2011 2185
8. H.B. Carter, P.C. Walsh, and P. Landis Expectant management of nonpalpable prostate cancer with curative intent: preliminary results J Urol 167 2002 1231
9. J.I. Epstein, P.C. Walsh, and M. Carmichael Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer JAMA 271 1994 368
10. A.V. D'Amico, R. Whittington, and S.B. Malkowicz Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer JAMA 280 1998 969
11. J.J. Tosoian, E. JohnBull, and B.J. Trock Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance J Urol 190 2013 1218
12. J.D. Davies, M.A. Aghazadeh, and S. Phillips Prostate size as a predictor of Gleason score upgrading in patients with low risk prostate cancer J Urol 186 2011 2221
13. J.I. Epstein, Z. Feng, and B.J. Trock 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 61 2012 1019
14. R. Kvale, B. Moller, and R. Wahlqvist Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study BJU Int 103 2009 1647
15. N.M. Corcoran, M.K. Hong, and R.G. Casey Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence BJU Int 108 2011 E202
16. M. Shipitsin, C. Small, and S. Choudhury Identification of proteomic biomarkers predicting prostate cancer aggressiveness and lethality despite biopsy-sampling error Br J Cancer 111 2014 1201
17. N.M. Corcoran, C.M. Hovens, and M.K. Hong Underestimation of Gleason score at prostate biopsy reflects sampling error in lower volume tumours BJU Int 109 2012 660
18. D.M. Steinberg, J. Sauvageot, and S. Piantadosi Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings Am J Surg Pathol 21 1997 566
19. K. Eichler, S. Hempel, and J. Wilby Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review J Urol 175 2006 1605
20. N.B. Delongchamps, G. de la Roza, and R. Jones Saturation biopsies on autopsied prostates for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer BJU Int 103 2009 49
21. U. Capitanio, P.I. Karakiewicz, and L. Valiquette Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant Gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer Urology 73 2009 1087
22. Z.D. Berger, J.C. Yeh, and H.B. Carter Characteristics and experiences of patients with localized prostate cancer who left an active surveillance program Patient 7 2014 427
23. M.R. Cooperberg, P.R. Carroll, and L. Klotz Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise J Clin Oncol 29 2011 3669
24. M.S. Soloway, C.T. Soloway, and S. Williams Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience BJU Int 101 2008 165
25. H.B. Carter, A.W. Partin, and P.C. Walsh Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer? J Clin Oncol 30 2012 4294