Incidence and Predictors of Upgrading and Up Staging among 10,000 Contemporary Patients with Low Risk Prostate Cancer

Journal of Urology

Volumn 194, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 343-349

  Dinh, Kathryn T ^a   Mahal, Brandon A ^a   Ziehr, David R ^a   Muralidhar, Vinayak ^a   Chen, Yu Wei ^b   Viswanathan, Vidya B ^c   Nezolosky, Michelle D ^c   Beard, Clair J ^c   Choueiri, Toni K ^c   Martin, Neil E ^c   Orio, Peter F ^c   Sweeney, Christopher J ^c   Trinh, Quoc D ^c   Nguyen, Paul L ^c  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

neoplasm grading; neoplasm staging; prostatic neoplasms; SEER program; watchful waiting

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER RISK; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURGERY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; LOW RISK PATIENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; TUMOR VOLUME; BLOOD; CANCER GRADING; FOLLOW UP; INCIDENCE; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURVIVAL RATE; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MALE; MASSACHUSETTS; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURVIVAL RATE;

EID: 84943365156     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: 15273792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.015     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. R. Siegel, J. Ma, Z. Zou, and et al. Cancer statistics, 2014 CA Cancer J Clin 64 2014 9
2. A. Bill-Axelson, L. Holmberg, M. Ruutu, and et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer N Engl J Med 364 2011 1708
3. T.J. Wilt, M.K. Brawer, K.M. Jones, and et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer N Engl J Med 367 2012 203
4. T.J. Wilt Management of low risk and low PSA prostate cancer: long term results from the Prostate cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial Recent Results Cancer Res 202 2014 149
5. J.A. Lane, J.L. Donovan, M. Davis, and et al. Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: study design and diagnostic and baseline results of the ProtecT randomised phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 15 2014 1109
6. V. Iremashvili, L. Pelaez, M. Manoharan, and et al. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols Eur Urol 62 2012 462
7. F.B. Thomsen, K. Brasso, L.H. Klotz, and et al. Active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer-a systematic review J Surg Oncol 109 2014 830
8. S.W. Fine, and J.I. Epstein A contemporary study correlating prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score J Urol 179 2008 1335
9. B.K. Isariyawongse, L. Sun, L.L. Banez, and et al. Significant discrepancies between diagnostic and pathologic Gleason sums in prostate cancer: the predictive role of age and prostate-specific antigen Urology 72 2008 882
10. L.S. Krane, M. Menon, S.A. Kaul, and et al. Role of PSA velocity in predicting pathologic upgrade for Gleason 6 prostate cancer Urol Oncol 29 2011 372
11. J.H. Pinthus, M. Witkos, N.E. Fleshner, and et al. Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome J Urol 176 2006 979
12. E. Rapiti, R. Schaffar, C. Iselin, and et al. Importance and determinants of Gleason score undergrading on biopsy sample of prostate cancer in a population-based study BMC Urol 13 2013 19
13. J.I. Epstein, Z. Feng, B.J. Trock, and et al. 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. S.J. Freedland, C.J. Kane, C.L. Amling, and et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications Urology 69 2007 495
15. G.D. Grossfeld, J.J. Chang, J.M. Broering, and et al. Under staging and under grading in a contemporary series of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: results from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor database J Urol 165 2001 851
16. K.J. Gancarczyk, H. Wu, D.G. McLeod, and et al. Using the percentage of biopsy cores positive for cancer, pretreatment PSA, and highest biopsy Gleason sum to predict pathologic stage after radical prostatectomy: the Center for Prostate Disease Research nomograms Urology 61 2003 589
17. SEER∗Stat Database: Incidence - SEER 9 Regs Research Data, Nov 2013 Sub (1973-2011) - Linked To County Attributes - Total U.S., 1969-2012 Counties, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch, released April 2014, based on the November 2013 submission. Available at www.seer.cancer.gov.
18. A. Heidenreich, P.J. Bastian, J. Bellmunt, and et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013 Eur Urol 65 2014 124
19. K. Eichler, S. Hempel, J. Wilby, and et al. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review J Urol 175 2006 1605
20. J.J. Tosoian, E. JohnBull, B.J. Trock, and et al. 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
21. M.A. Bjurlin, X. Meng, J. Le Nobin, and et al. Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment J Urol 192 2014 648
22. G.A. Sonn, S. Natarajan, D.J. Margolis, and et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device J Urol 189 2013 86
23. P. Puech, O. Rouviere, R. Renard-Penna, and et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy-prospective multicenter study Radiology 268 2013 461
24. C.M. Moore, N.L. Robertson, N. Arsanious, and et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review Eur Urol 63 2013 125
25. M.M. Siddiqui, S. Rais-Bahrami, B. Turkbey, and et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer JAMA 313 2015 390
26. M.R. Cooperberg, P.R. Carroll, and L. Klotz Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise J Clin Oncol 29 2011 3669
27. E.W. Cooke, D.C. Shrieve, and J.D. Tward Clinical versus pathologic staging for prostate adenocarcinoma: how do they correlate? Am J Clin Oncol 35 2012 364
28. J.I. Epstein, W.C. Allsbrook Jr., M.B. Amin, and et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma Am J Surg Pathol 29 2005 1228
29. D. Sundi, A.E. Ross, E.B. Humphreys, and et al. African American men with very low-risk prostate cancer exhibit adverse oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: should active surveillance still be an option for them? J Clin Oncol 31 2013 2991
30. A.B. Weiner, S.G. Patel, R. Etzioni, and et al. National trends in the management of low and intermediate risk prostate cancer in the United States J Urol 193 2015 95