Upper limit of cancer extent on biopsy defining very low-risk prostate cancer

BJU International

Volumn 116, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 213-219

  Bratt, Ola ^a,b   Folkvaljon, Yasin ^c   Loeb, Stacy ^d   Klotz, Laurence ^e   Egevad, Lars ^f   Stattin, Pär ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UPPSALA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^d NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^f KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^g UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

biopsy; categorisation; pathology; prostatic neoplasms

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; CANCER STAGING; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; TUMOR BIOPSY; TUMOR VOLUME; VERY LOW RISK PROSTATE CANCER; BIOPSY; CLASSIFICATION; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

AGED; BIOPSY; COHORT STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84937514442     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.12874     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B, et al., NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010; 8: 162-200
2. Heidenreich A, Bastian P, Bellmunt J, et al., European Association of Urology Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2013. Available at: http://www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/. Accessed January 2015
3. Dall'era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, et al., Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 976-83
4. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP,. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993; 71 (Suppl.): 933-8
5. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB,. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271: 368-74
6. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL,; ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228-42
7. Dong F, Wang C, Farris AB, et al., Impact on the clinical outcome of prostate cancer by the 2005 international society of urological pathology modified Gleason grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2012; 36: 838-43
8. Ross HM, Kryvenko ON, Cowan JE, Simko JP, Wheeler TM, Epstein JI,. Do adenocarcinomas of the prostate with Gleason score (GS)
9. Van der Kwast TH, Roobol MJ,. Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2013; 10: 473-82
10. Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I,. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 2009; 302: 1685-92
11. Nickel JC, Speakman M,. Should we really consider Gleason 6 prostate cancer? BJU Int 2012; 109: 645-6
12. 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: 591-5
13. Ellis CL, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI,. Multiple cores of Gleason score 6 correlate with favourable findings at radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2013; 111: E306-9
14. Reese AC, Landis P, Han M, Epstein JI, Carter HB,. Expanded criteria to identify men eligible for active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer at Johns Hopkins: a preliminary analysis. J Urol 2013; 190: 2033-8
15. Klotz L,. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: overview and update. Cur Treat Opt Oncol 2013; 14: 97-108
16. Vellekoop A, Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Stattin P,. Population based study of predictors of adverse pathology among candidates for active surveillance with Gleason 6 prostate cancer. J Urol 2014; 191: 350-7
17. Tosoian JJ, JohnBull E, Trock BJ, et al., Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. J Urol 2013; 190: 1218-22
18. Shaw GL, Thomas BC, Dawson SN, et al., Identification of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer is not accurate in unscreened men. Br J Cancer 2014; 110: 2405-11
19. Guttilla A, Zazzara M, Zattoni F, et al., Histopathological characteristics of microfocal prostate cancer detected during systematic prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2014. [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12786
20. Adolfsson J, Garmo H, Varenhorst E, et al., Clinical characteristics and primary treatment of prostate cancer in Sweden between 1996 and 2005. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2007; 41: 456-77
21. Magheli A, Hinz S, Hege C, et al., Prostate specific antigen density to predict prostate cancer upgrading in a contemporary radical prostatectomy series: a single center experience. J Urol 2010; 183: 126-31
22. Hong SK, Na W, Park JM, et al., Prediction of pathological outcomes for a single microfocal (/=12) biopsy in men with prostate-specific antigen
23. Mitsuzuka K, Narita S, Koie T, et al., Pathological and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men with low-risk prostate cancer meeting the Prostate Cancer International: active surveillance criteria. BJU Int 2013; 111: 914-20
24. Häggarth L, Ekman P, Egevad L,. A new core-biopsy instrument with an end-cut technique provides prostate biopsies with increased tissue yield. BJU Int 2002; 90: 51-5
25. Thomas C, Pfirrmann K, Pieles F, et al., Predictors for clinically relevant Gleason score upgrade in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2012; 109: 214-9
26. Abdollah F, Suardi N, Capitanio U, et al., Spatial distribution of positive cores improves the selection of patients with low-risk prostate cancer as candidates for active surveillance. BJU Int 2013; 112: E234-42
27. Duffield AS, Lee TK, Miyamoto H, Carter HB, Epstein JI,. Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails. J Urol 2009; 182: 2274-8
28. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Bennett A, et al., Transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy as a staging procedure to select patients best suited for active surveillance. Am J Clin Oncol 2013; 36: 116-20
29. 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: 1037-45
30. Berney DM, 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: 405-11