Age is associated with upgrading at confirmatory biopsy among men with prostate cancer treated with active surveillance

Journal of Urology

Volumn 194, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1607-1611

  Anderson, Christopher B ^a   Sternberg, Itay A ^a   Karen Paz, Gal ^a   Kim, Philip H ^a   Sjoberg, Daniel ^a   Vargas, Hebert Alberto ^a   Touijer, Karim ^a   Eastham, James A ^a   Ehdaie, Behfar ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

age factors; biopsy; magnetic resonance imaging; prostatic neoplasms; watchful waiting

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE VOLUME; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TUMOR BIOPSY; TUMOR VOLUME; AGE; BIOPSY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER STAGING; CAUSE OF DEATH; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; OBSERVATION; ODDS RATIO; ORGAN SIZE; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; BIOPSY; CAUSE OF DEATH; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM STAGING; OBSERVATION; ODDS RATIO; ORGAN SIZE; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84947290983     PISSN: 00225347     EISSN: 15273792     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.084     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. E. Scosyrev, E.M. Messing, S. Mohile, and et al. Prostate cancer in the elderly: frequency of advanced disease at presentation and disease-specific mortality Cancer 118 2012 3062
3. 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
4. NCCN Guidelines: Prostate Cancer, 2013. Available at http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/f-guidelines.asp. Accessed June 18, 2015.
5. L. Klotz, L. Zhang, A. Lam, and et al. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer J Clin Oncol 28 2010 126
6. Social Security Administration: Actuarial Life Tables. Available at http://ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html. Accessed June 18, 2015.
7. T.J. Daskivich, K.H. Fan, T. Koyama, and et al. Effect of age, tumor risk, and comorbidity on competing risks for survival in a U.S. population-based cohort of men with prostate cancer Ann Intern Med 158 2013 709
8. P.C. Albertsen, J.A. Hanley, and J. Fine 20-Year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer JAMA 293 2005 2095
9. M.A. Dall'Era, P.C. Albertsen, C. Bangma, and et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature Eur Urol 62 2012 976
10. A.A. Aizer, M.H. Chen, J. Hattangadi, and et al. Initial management of prostate-specific antigen-detected, low-risk prostate cancer and the risk of death from prostate cancer BJU Int 113 2014 43
11. M. Bul, X. Zhu, R. Valdagni, and et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study Eur Urol 63 2013 597
12. H.D. Patel, Z. Feng, P. Landis, and et al. Prostate specific antigen velocity risk count predicts biopsy reclassification for men with very low risk prostate cancer J Urol 191 2014 629
13. K.C. Cary, J.E. Cowan, M. Sanford, and et al. Predictors of pathologic progression on biopsy among men on active surveillance for localized prostate cancer: the value of the pattern of surveillance biopsies Eur Urol 66 2014 337
14. G.S. Kulkarni, R. Al-Azab, G. Lockwood, and et al. Evidence for a biopsy derived grade artifact among larger prostate glands J Urol 175 2006 505
15. R.G. Uzzo, J.T. Wei, R.S. Waldbaum, and et al. The influence of prostate size on cancer detection Urology 46 1995 831
16. H.A. Vargas, O. Akin, A. Afaq, and et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer J Urol 188 2012 1732
17. J.J. Tosoian, B.J. Trock, P. Landis, and et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience J Clin Oncol 29 2011 2185
18. A. Adamy, D.S. Yee, K. Matsushita, and et al. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer J Urol 185 2011 477
19. M. Bul, R.C. van den Bergh, A. Rannikko, and et al. Predictors of unfavourable repeat biopsy results in men participating in a prospective active surveillance program Eur Urol 61 2012 370
20. I.F. San Francisco, L. Werner, M.M. Regan, and et al. Risk stratification and validation of prostate specific antigen density as independent predictor of progression in men with low risk prostate cancer during active surveillance J Urol 185 2011 471
21. J.M. Whitson, S.P. Porten, J.F. Hilton, and et al. The relationship between prostate specific antigen change and biopsy progression in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer J Urol 185 2011 1656
22. L.M. Wong, S.M. Alibhai, G. Trottier, and et al. A negative confirmatory biopsy among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer does not protect them from histologic grade progression Eur Urol 66 2014 406
23. 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
24. G.S. Kulkarni, G. Lockwood, A. Evans, and et al. Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy Cancer 109 2007 2432
25. A. Vellekoop, S. Loeb, Y. Folkvaljon, and et al. Population based study of predictors of adverse pathology among candidates for active surveillance with Gleason 6 prostate cancer J Urol 191 2014 350
26. N. Suardi, A. Gallina, U. Capitanio, and et al. Age-adjusted validation of the most stringent criteria for active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer patients Cancer 118 2012 973
27. T.C. Ngo, S.L. Conti, R. Shinghal, and et al. Prostate size does not predict high grade cancer J Urol 187 2012 477
28. S.A. Brassell, K.R. Rice, P.M. Parker, and et al. Prostate cancer in men 70 years old or older, indolent or aggressive: clinicopathological analysis and outcomes J Urol 185 2011 132
29. I.M. Thompson, D.P. Ankerst, C. Chi, and et al. Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial J Natl Cancer Inst 98 2006 529
30. M.R. Cooperberg, J.E. Cowan, J.F. Hilton, and et al. Outcomes of active surveillance for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer J Clin Oncol 29 2011 228