Histopathological characteristics of microfocal prostate cancer detected during systematic prostate biopsy

BJU International

Volumn 116, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 202-206

  Guttilla, Andrea ^a   Zazzara, Michele ^a   Zattoni, Fabio ^a   Novara, Giacomo ^a   Zanin, Martina ^b   Gardiman, Marina ^a   Ficarra, Vincenzo ^a   Zattoni, Filiberto ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^b S MARIA DEGLI ANGELI HOSPITAL   (Italy)

Author keywords

active surveillance; microfocal prostate cancer; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RISK; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; GENITAL SYSTEM DISEASE ASSESSMENT; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MICROFOCAL PROSTATE CANCER; MULTICENTER STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION; BIOPSY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

AGED; BIOPSY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE;

EID: 84937517935     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.12786     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Andriole GL Jr,. PSA screening and prostate cancer risk reduction. Urol Oncol 2012; 30: 936-7
2. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Carlsson S, et al. Screening for prostate cancer decreases the risk of developing metastatic disease: findings from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Eur Urol 2012; 62: 745-52
3. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM,. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 19: 203-13
4. 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
5. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 61-71
6. Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 597-603
7. 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: 1672-7
8. Harnden P, Naylor B, Shelley MD, Clements H, Coles B, Mason MD,. The clinical management of patients with a small volume of prostatic cancer on biopsy: what are the risks of progression? A systematic review and meta-analysis Cancer 2008; 112: 971-81
9. Edge S, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edn, New York, NY: Springer: 2010
10. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Optimizing patient selection for dose escalation techniques using the prostate-specific antigen level, biopsy Gleason score, and clinical T-stage. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 45: 1227-33
11. Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S, et al. Predictors of positive surgical margins after laparoscopic robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2009; 182: 2682-8
12. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL, The 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.
13. 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
14. Iremashvili V, Burdick-Will J, Soloway MS,. Improving risk stratification in patients with prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a nomogram predicting the risk of biopsy progression. BJU Int 2013; 112: 39-44